Support as nominator –
EUPBR (
talk) 15:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I struck the above vote per instructions on top of the
WP:FPC page. Editor has less than 100 edits on the English Wikipedia.
Bammesk (
talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That is true and fair, thank you for pointing out!
EUPBR (
talk) 20:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – Good large-scale shot of one of Warsaw's most notable postwar squares. (In the '90s the central island was filled with higgledy-piggledy food-vendor shops, later banished.) Część!–
Sca (
talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Cześć :)
EUPBR (
talk) 21:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2023 at 12:50:14 (UTC)
Reason
Quite a nice poster. Touring production of the run, which I think goes some way to show the popularity. The English-language adaptation has a large presence in the article, which I think justifies it not being the original French.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2023 at 13:38:41 (UTC)
Reason
Excellent pose, taken during a performance. I'm normally very iffy about
my concert photographs because I've been limited to a cell, but this one I think crosses the threshhold.
It does look a bit like he's talking not singing...
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 08:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm forgetting the timelines because it's been a busy week, but IIRC this was during a slower portion of one of their songs, while he was leaning into the crowd.
File:Mest performing at Saint Andrew's Hall, Detroit, 2023-09-14 08.jpg is the closest chronologically (only a couple minutes prior), though given that this was only a hour's set, it doesn't help narrow things down much. No fan videos of their performance either. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 10:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – Good photo. I added some content to the article. The article is weak, hopefully it will get more attention.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. I prefer the composition of the other photo in the Parazoanthus axinellae article, but this is obviously a superior photo.
Choliamb (
talk) 23:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Anémona incrustante amarilla (Parazoanthus axinellae), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2022-07-20, DD 49.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2023 at 12:41:29 (UTC)
Reason
Paired with a caption I think it's pretty shocking; my jaw dropped when I first learned of it. Succinctly captures why the period of
Korea under Japanese rule has continued to cause controversy. For sources for the claims in the caption, please see the
Hyochang Park article.
I might see what I can do with the dodge/burn tools to even out the sky a bit more, but (@
Toobigtokale and
Charlesjsharp: restoration uploaded, Support restorationAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 20:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support restoration Thanks so much!
toobigtokale (
talk) 22:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support restoration - They what now? Yeah, my jaw dropped. Seems like a newspaper or book scan, but high EV and the halftoning isn't too bad. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 13:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Hyochangwon as Korea's first golf course.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Shadow detail totally lost, compare with the signed photo on file page. --
Janke |
Talk 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – yes the shadows are lost, but it should be judged for what it is: a documentary photo, an early space photo, 1966, the first of its kind (EVA), as published by NASA
[1], the lighting contrast is too severe to expect reasonable shadows (or else the highlights would blow), one-time event (irreplaceable). FP criteria has several exceptions for photos like this.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 18:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nice photo for Commons but not good EV head on.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Charlesjsharp: Think it's good for, like, a behaviour section? I am inclined to agree that while probably not FP quality, something like
File:Amphiprion bicinctus Marsa Alam 6.JPG or
File:Bicinctus.jpg might be a better lead, but if we can show a behaviour well, it might be justifiable to promote this anyway. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 22:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per Charles. Can't see the fish for the anemone tentacles. –
Sca (
talk) 13:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – per above. --
Janke |
Talk 14:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2023 at 15:11:45 (UTC)
Reason
This early map of the New World has already been selected as a featured picture on the Turkish and Arabic Wikipedia. It famously incorporates an early depiction of the Caribbean from the
Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was created at a point in time when the Ottoman Empire was still a major power in Europe. It is likely most famous for the disproven theory that it depicted an ice-free Antarctica.
Support as nominator –
Rjjiii (
talk) 05:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Obvious support if quality is OK, but I'm not sure the photo is in focus.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – Good EV but the file resolution is too low. At full size or even if zoomed in, I doubt the text is legible. For a map with so much detail and text, the resolution should be higher and the details should be clearer.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Unremarkable looking image. How do we know this was the first example? Might well have been written in BASIC a decade earlier... --
Janke |
Talk 16:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose The caption is confusingly worded, but from what I gather, it's a commemorative artwork purposefully created for the auction in 2015, handwritten by Kernighan and quoting his lines of code first published in 1978. The code itself is historic, the artwork isn't. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
In that case, a definite oppose. --
Janke |
Talk 19:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per previous. Basically, a white rectangle with no apparent EV. –
Sca (
talk) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Seems excessively cropped, to the point of cutting off parts of the artwork. There's not much more in the original, but given the original isn't even uploaded on here (archive access isn't necessarily forever: Look at the British National Portrait Gallery, for instance, or all the ones that aren't even available at any scale anymore), and there is more, I think we need another look at this. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 23:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I support if the original is uploaded, per Adam. I think it can use a minor restoration.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll try to get to it. Kind of getting a lot of stuff regarding dad's estate hitting just now. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 19:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Condolences Adam, I wish you a peaceful transition. No worries about images, we can re-nominate.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Could remove the rip on the right, but it's not a mass-produced engraving from what I'm aware, and it's not major enough to hurt usage, so better to just leave it be, I think. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 00:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Voting as at Commons FP. No legend, no scale, no date etc.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Interesting but confusing. One needs to zoom in extensively to get much out of it, and it's blurry at high resolution.
Kymothoë (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support (as uploader), high EV, associated with a scale series of 100s of sheets from the same creator (like this
1:25'000 series).
Zach(Talk) 11:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – but currently it fails FP criterion #7, a file description in English.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fixed. My apologies. The English version is shorter because most of the Portuguese is a short biography of Neves; we have an article for that; instead I focused on what we know about the image itself, which I think is a little buried in the Portuguese. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 09:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose We don't see enough of the eel for EV.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 13:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nice picture; but only head and a part of the
animal's corporality is found or clear here. –
Hamid Hassani (
talk) 03:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Classy photo for Commons but virtually no EV for the Common blue article.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 13:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I mean, it's useful to see its underside. But the dew maybe is prettier than encyclopædic Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 15:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2023 at 14:32:22 (UTC)
Reason
Quality photo of the
OSIRIS-REx mission's sample return capsule upon landing in September 2023. The capsule returned samples collected from the
Bennu asteroid in October 2020.
Support. Not every encyclopedic image is visually stunning. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 22:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment.
This photo has a more interesting composition and shows the landscape of the landing site much better. Not sure if it would have value for the article about the mission but I added it to
Utah Test and Training Range, where it has obvious relevance. Weak support current nominee.
blameless 03:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I would prefer the other photo as well. It's a much, much better composition. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I've added it. Support alt.blameless 01:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a tradeoff, scenery versus the capsule. The original nom image has more resolution on the capsule, and the capsule displays larger at thumbnail. It's more encyclopedic in the mission articles. The other photo suits the test range article. Prefer original.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support origiinal and alt, prefer alt. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 03:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think the Alt is a better image in the mission article:
OSIRIS-REx, and I am not sure it will remain stable there, if added. The other listed articles are too generic for either photo. If the Alt image is not in the mission article and stable, then it has my oppose vote, in favor of my support vote for the Original image.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Is this image of the capsule immediately after its landing, before people disturbed it in any way? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kymothoë (
talk •
contribs) 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Kymothoë, what we know is the chronological photo sequence:
Here, from arrival on the scene to the transportation of the capsule. Double click on any image to see its description and
EXIF data.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Staged photo - after the parachute lines were removed. It looks as if it was brushed down and straightened up too.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
If so, then * '''Oppose'''. There simply isn't much information in the image.
Kymothoë (
talk)
Kymothoë (
talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm so sorry about that formatting; I'm very new here.
Kymothoë (
talk) 20:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It wasn't staged, brushed down and straightened! The tilt is from front to back, not side to side, so it doesn't show in a frontal photo. Yes the parachute remnant was removed, and an orange sticker was placed on what appears to be a sensor hole (I suppose to prevent contamination). That's normal procedure, not manipulation. Not a disqualifier as far as I am concerned.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
By my cound the original has 4,5 supports and the alt has 4, and therefore none of them has enough support for promotion. Regards,
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute/Alex Parker
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 16:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – the original at the source link:
[2] is a 2.69 MB png file. The converted jpeg file is merely 267 KB. That's too small. Compression? Conversion quality settings! Would support otherwise.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Bammesk: I've generated a new, less compressed version from the original (and uploaded the original). Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 06:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is quite a good idea to nominate at Commons before nominating here then we do not need to oppose on technical grounds.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – It fails
FP criterion #2, 1500 pixels minimum. @
ZmajiZmajiZmaji: English Wikipedia and Commons have two different standards (criteria) for FPs. At en-Wiki we go by the FP criteria at this link:
WP:FP?. Also we go by the instructions on top of the
WP:FPC page. Feel free to nominate images here at en-Wiki, but per the instructions you do not have the sufficient number of edits (100 edits minimum) to vote at en-Wiki, so your votes will be ignored until you meet that requirement.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a nice image, but it doesn't meet the 1500 by 1500 criteria.
Bremps... 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Probably some reason to crop it slightly given the weird line on the right side, but this is way too much. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose FP should be when he was President.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Charlesjsharp: While that's probably normally true, Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his combined work after he was president, which probably makes this more significant. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I raised the same concern on
this talk page, and got an answer. If you have any other copyright-related question, you can probably ask Batoul84, who answered my question, or—per the image's page—ask on Wiki Palestine's
talk page.
FunLater (
talk) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wonderful. With the copyright question cleared up, I'll support for the compositon and usefulness.
Bremps... 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – Whatever its copyright status, this image of a spot news event seems too ephemeral for the POTD ethos, and could be considered POV in the context of the ongoing
Israel–Hamas War. –
Sca (
talk) 13:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
FunLater,
FP criterion #5 says "it is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article". The image isn't stable in
its primary article ("primary" in the context of adding significant encyclopedic value to an article, FP criterion #5).
Bammesk (
talk) 19:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to support, but am inclined to think this should be given a week or so to have usage settle down before voting. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Bremps... 05:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I stumbled upon this painting by chance, and thought it pertinent given the situation in Israel right now. Please judge the painting on its own, however.
Bremps... 05:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – although the resolution (pixel count) can be higher with today's technology. Not sure I agree with "pertinent given the situation" comment, because
WP:FPC is not news.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Even though the resolution of the picture is not that high (as Bammesk mentioned), many details are more or less "vivid". –
Hamid Hassani (
talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Adam, the google project image has a file size of 2.18 MB. The nom image is 1.06 MB, it's probably more compressed. I say the google project image is better. I couldn't see a visual difference on my screen though.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I've just uploaded over with the less compressed version. SupportAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 04:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2023 at 05:52:24 (UTC)
Reason
Added to the
National Film Registry in 2000, this 1915 film feared to be lost until being found in the 1970s is one of the first full-length gangster films. And this is a very clean print of said movie.
Support – Interesting use of cross dissolves, circular and wide-screen mattes, as well as toned and tinted scenes. --
Janke |
Talk 09:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2023 at 02:05:29 (UTC)
Reason
Lead image in the
Ice eggs article. The technical quality isn't ideal, but this is a rare phenomenon that occurs at low temperatures. Not a common occurrence to photograph. See the Commons nom:
[3] for a discussion of the technical quality.
Support as nominator –
Bammesk (
talk) 02:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support - top EV. --
Janke |
Talk 09:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. To borrow the words of one of the commenters at the Commons FPC, this is a case of "extraordinary wow trumps anything else".
Choliamb (
talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Article is a 164-word stub. Not suitable for Main Page promotion. And the 'eggs' look like rocks. –
Sca (
talk) 13:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, good photo of rare phenomenon.
Artem.G (
talk) 21:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, wow. –
SJ + 02:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello, I would like to nominate Disney's animated short film
Steamboat Willie which has not been uploaded yet. The reason is that the film will
famously enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2024 and I would like to showcase it on the Main Page on that exact day (I would upload it on Commons on the evening of 31 December 2023). I know that this is unorthodox, but it would be a really cool way to celebrate Public Domain Day next year. What do you think? --
Gnom (
talk) 06:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Gnom (
talk) 06:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with a BIG caveat: In order to avoid any copyright infringement, even one ever so small, it should not be viewable anywhere until January 1st at 00:00 local time. Does the Wiki software actually time the front page view to the actual date/time of the page viewer's location? And how to decide exactly when to upload to Commons? 00:00 according to UTC, or PST - assuming the latter is the time zone for the original copyright? Or even the earliest time zone possible, that of
Kiribati, i.e. UTC +14 - which means the upload would be legal at least somewhere on the earth... (This is only half in jest!) --
Janke |
Talk 09:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose until the file is actually uploaded. While I support the premise of the nomination in principle, I can't support something until I see what the Main Page readers will see.
MER-C 19:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Well, you can see the film itself via the YT link above, and the Main Page text can actually be proposed here... perhaps with the help of MP editors? It would be fun to have it at the first possible moment! --
Janke |
Talk 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think MER-C means that you can’t just download a file from YouTube and upload it directly to Commons. You have to convert the file to a format that’s compatible with Commons, and that conversion can have adverse effects on the video if not properly done. Regards,
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, and to add to that someone is likely to release a much higher quality version of this movie on January 1.
MER-C 19:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose, at least with the proposed source. While I appreciate the sentiment, the YouTube version, at 360p, is too low in quality to meet the FP criteria. And the historic exception argument doesn't quite hold, as the low resolution is a limitation imposed on this digital version, not inherent to the original format. Surely there are archives in possession of the original film prints who will be able to publish higher quality conversions once the copyright finally lapses? There may also be issues over the creativity and copyrightability of the restoration work itself, if such work took place as part of the digitisation. Altogether, I don't think it's practically possible to have Steamboat Willie as POTD for 1 January, so better just take the usual route and nominate it when it's ready (and maybe discuss making an exception for jumping the POTD queue to feature it as early as possible then). --
Paul_012 (
talk) 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd have to oppose uploading it December 31st, when it's still in copyright. I'd suggest the earliest we can go for is January 2nd. The copyright law is a little vague as to the exact time of changeover online, where there's many timezones. The servers are in Florida and California, I believe, which means we technically should be careful about hosting something before midnight Pacific time, by which time it will be 8 am UTC and the POTD will have been running for 8 hours. We could do it by the same logic as the IAR for Queen Elizabeth's funeral (which might have proven controversial as every section of the main page independently got in on it, but I don't think was an issue otherwise):
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hrh Princess Elizabeth in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, April 1945 TR2832.jpg - If it's passing, and there's no opposition to it after a reasonable discussion done a few days beforehand, it can jump immediately to the next day's queue. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 21:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Paul 012 and @
Adam Cuerden, thank you for your commens – would you support a FP nomination of the Bluray version (assuming that I can find a way to upload it to Commons)?
Gnom (
talk) 13:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, as long as there's no presumption of new copyright. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 19:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
In principle, yes, though that's also conditional on the other issues being properly addressed. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 11:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Considering all of the discussions above, I struck my support. --
Janke |
Talk 09:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Janke and @
Geni, thank you for your comments – would you support a FP nomination of the Bluray version (assuming that I can find a way to upload it to Commons)?
Gnom (
talk) 13:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I support a January 1st upload (U.S. time) and a January 2nd POTD. I am Ok with the current 360p version on youtube
[4]. It's downloadable as MP4 and can be converted to WebM. A 1080p version can be uploaded later to overwrite it (whenever available, and with a proper license if needed for reproduction creativity and restoration).
Bammesk (
talk) 19:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Bammesk, thank you for your comment. Do you support the FP nomination (which is what this discussion is about, after all)? --
Gnom (
talk) 13:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, with the stated caveat. I changed my comment to a vote. When/if the concerns expressed above by others are addressed, regarding the feasibility of a January 1st POTD (i.e. timing), and/or a 1080p version (and its copyright if applicable), then I support those scenarios as well.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, we will address the copyright issue separately (I am a media lawyer and actually hold a PhD in copyright law, so I think that I should be able to figure this out).
Gnom (
talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I support the idea, in whatever way it is accomplished. But could we be absolutely sure that a Blu-Ray rip is copyright-free, since such a HD transfer was probably originally done by Disney? --
Janke |
Talk 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Let's wait until the file is a) actually uploaded and b) stable in the relevant articles until a FPC.
Nick-D (
talk) 10:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2023 at 12:02:04 (UTC)
Reason
While finishing up things with
Nettie Stevens, I checked Wilson - who independently discovered the Y chromosome - albeit without as much insight as Stevens had - at around the same time.
This was the lead image. So, yeah, I took it upon myself to research and restore a better image. This kind of dramatic lighting was a bit of a photographic trend a decade or so either side of 1900; This is one of the better examples, with superb facial detail.
Support as nominator –
EUPBR (
talk) 15:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I struck the above vote per instructions on top of the
WP:FPC page. Editor has less than 100 edits on the English Wikipedia.
Bammesk (
talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That is true and fair, thank you for pointing out!
EUPBR (
talk) 20:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – Good large-scale shot of one of Warsaw's most notable postwar squares. (In the '90s the central island was filled with higgledy-piggledy food-vendor shops, later banished.) Część!–
Sca (
talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Cześć :)
EUPBR (
talk) 21:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2023 at 12:50:14 (UTC)
Reason
Quite a nice poster. Touring production of the run, which I think goes some way to show the popularity. The English-language adaptation has a large presence in the article, which I think justifies it not being the original French.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2023 at 13:38:41 (UTC)
Reason
Excellent pose, taken during a performance. I'm normally very iffy about
my concert photographs because I've been limited to a cell, but this one I think crosses the threshhold.
It does look a bit like he's talking not singing...
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 08:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm forgetting the timelines because it's been a busy week, but IIRC this was during a slower portion of one of their songs, while he was leaning into the crowd.
File:Mest performing at Saint Andrew's Hall, Detroit, 2023-09-14 08.jpg is the closest chronologically (only a couple minutes prior), though given that this was only a hour's set, it doesn't help narrow things down much. No fan videos of their performance either. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 10:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – Good photo. I added some content to the article. The article is weak, hopefully it will get more attention.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. I prefer the composition of the other photo in the Parazoanthus axinellae article, but this is obviously a superior photo.
Choliamb (
talk) 23:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Anémona incrustante amarilla (Parazoanthus axinellae), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2022-07-20, DD 49.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2023 at 12:41:29 (UTC)
Reason
Paired with a caption I think it's pretty shocking; my jaw dropped when I first learned of it. Succinctly captures why the period of
Korea under Japanese rule has continued to cause controversy. For sources for the claims in the caption, please see the
Hyochang Park article.
I might see what I can do with the dodge/burn tools to even out the sky a bit more, but (@
Toobigtokale and
Charlesjsharp: restoration uploaded, Support restorationAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 20:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support restoration Thanks so much!
toobigtokale (
talk) 22:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support restoration - They what now? Yeah, my jaw dropped. Seems like a newspaper or book scan, but high EV and the halftoning isn't too bad. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 13:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Hyochangwon as Korea's first golf course.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Shadow detail totally lost, compare with the signed photo on file page. --
Janke |
Talk 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – yes the shadows are lost, but it should be judged for what it is: a documentary photo, an early space photo, 1966, the first of its kind (EVA), as published by NASA
[1], the lighting contrast is too severe to expect reasonable shadows (or else the highlights would blow), one-time event (irreplaceable). FP criteria has several exceptions for photos like this.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 18:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nice photo for Commons but not good EV head on.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Charlesjsharp: Think it's good for, like, a behaviour section? I am inclined to agree that while probably not FP quality, something like
File:Amphiprion bicinctus Marsa Alam 6.JPG or
File:Bicinctus.jpg might be a better lead, but if we can show a behaviour well, it might be justifiable to promote this anyway. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 22:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per Charles. Can't see the fish for the anemone tentacles. –
Sca (
talk) 13:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – per above. --
Janke |
Talk 14:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2023 at 15:11:45 (UTC)
Reason
This early map of the New World has already been selected as a featured picture on the Turkish and Arabic Wikipedia. It famously incorporates an early depiction of the Caribbean from the
Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was created at a point in time when the Ottoman Empire was still a major power in Europe. It is likely most famous for the disproven theory that it depicted an ice-free Antarctica.
Support as nominator –
Rjjiii (
talk) 05:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Obvious support if quality is OK, but I'm not sure the photo is in focus.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – Good EV but the file resolution is too low. At full size or even if zoomed in, I doubt the text is legible. For a map with so much detail and text, the resolution should be higher and the details should be clearer.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Unremarkable looking image. How do we know this was the first example? Might well have been written in BASIC a decade earlier... --
Janke |
Talk 16:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose The caption is confusingly worded, but from what I gather, it's a commemorative artwork purposefully created for the auction in 2015, handwritten by Kernighan and quoting his lines of code first published in 1978. The code itself is historic, the artwork isn't. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
In that case, a definite oppose. --
Janke |
Talk 19:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per previous. Basically, a white rectangle with no apparent EV. –
Sca (
talk) 13:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Seems excessively cropped, to the point of cutting off parts of the artwork. There's not much more in the original, but given the original isn't even uploaded on here (archive access isn't necessarily forever: Look at the British National Portrait Gallery, for instance, or all the ones that aren't even available at any scale anymore), and there is more, I think we need another look at this. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 23:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I support if the original is uploaded, per Adam. I think it can use a minor restoration.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll try to get to it. Kind of getting a lot of stuff regarding dad's estate hitting just now. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 19:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Condolences Adam, I wish you a peaceful transition. No worries about images, we can re-nominate.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Could remove the rip on the right, but it's not a mass-produced engraving from what I'm aware, and it's not major enough to hurt usage, so better to just leave it be, I think. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 00:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Voting as at Commons FP. No legend, no scale, no date etc.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Interesting but confusing. One needs to zoom in extensively to get much out of it, and it's blurry at high resolution.
Kymothoë (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support (as uploader), high EV, associated with a scale series of 100s of sheets from the same creator (like this
1:25'000 series).
Zach(Talk) 11:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – but currently it fails FP criterion #7, a file description in English.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fixed. My apologies. The English version is shorter because most of the Portuguese is a short biography of Neves; we have an article for that; instead I focused on what we know about the image itself, which I think is a little buried in the Portuguese. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 09:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose We don't see enough of the eel for EV.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 13:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nice picture; but only head and a part of the
animal's corporality is found or clear here. –
Hamid Hassani (
talk) 03:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Classy photo for Commons but virtually no EV for the Common blue article.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 13:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I mean, it's useful to see its underside. But the dew maybe is prettier than encyclopædic Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 15:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2023 at 14:32:22 (UTC)
Reason
Quality photo of the
OSIRIS-REx mission's sample return capsule upon landing in September 2023. The capsule returned samples collected from the
Bennu asteroid in October 2020.
Support. Not every encyclopedic image is visually stunning. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 22:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment.
This photo has a more interesting composition and shows the landscape of the landing site much better. Not sure if it would have value for the article about the mission but I added it to
Utah Test and Training Range, where it has obvious relevance. Weak support current nominee.
blameless 03:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I would prefer the other photo as well. It's a much, much better composition. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I've added it. Support alt.blameless 01:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a tradeoff, scenery versus the capsule. The original nom image has more resolution on the capsule, and the capsule displays larger at thumbnail. It's more encyclopedic in the mission articles. The other photo suits the test range article. Prefer original.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support origiinal and alt, prefer alt. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 03:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think the Alt is a better image in the mission article:
OSIRIS-REx, and I am not sure it will remain stable there, if added. The other listed articles are too generic for either photo. If the Alt image is not in the mission article and stable, then it has my oppose vote, in favor of my support vote for the Original image.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Is this image of the capsule immediately after its landing, before people disturbed it in any way? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kymothoë (
talk •
contribs) 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Kymothoë, what we know is the chronological photo sequence:
Here, from arrival on the scene to the transportation of the capsule. Double click on any image to see its description and
EXIF data.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Staged photo - after the parachute lines were removed. It looks as if it was brushed down and straightened up too.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
If so, then * '''Oppose'''. There simply isn't much information in the image.
Kymothoë (
talk)
Kymothoë (
talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm so sorry about that formatting; I'm very new here.
Kymothoë (
talk) 20:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It wasn't staged, brushed down and straightened! The tilt is from front to back, not side to side, so it doesn't show in a frontal photo. Yes the parachute remnant was removed, and an orange sticker was placed on what appears to be a sensor hole (I suppose to prevent contamination). That's normal procedure, not manipulation. Not a disqualifier as far as I am concerned.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
By my cound the original has 4,5 supports and the alt has 4, and therefore none of them has enough support for promotion. Regards,
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute/Alex Parker
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 16:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – the original at the source link:
[2] is a 2.69 MB png file. The converted jpeg file is merely 267 KB. That's too small. Compression? Conversion quality settings! Would support otherwise.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Bammesk: I've generated a new, less compressed version from the original (and uploaded the original). Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 06:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is quite a good idea to nominate at Commons before nominating here then we do not need to oppose on technical grounds.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – It fails
FP criterion #2, 1500 pixels minimum. @
ZmajiZmajiZmaji: English Wikipedia and Commons have two different standards (criteria) for FPs. At en-Wiki we go by the FP criteria at this link:
WP:FP?. Also we go by the instructions on top of the
WP:FPC page. Feel free to nominate images here at en-Wiki, but per the instructions you do not have the sufficient number of edits (100 edits minimum) to vote at en-Wiki, so your votes will be ignored until you meet that requirement.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's a nice image, but it doesn't meet the 1500 by 1500 criteria.
Bremps... 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Probably some reason to crop it slightly given the weird line on the right side, but this is way too much. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose FP should be when he was President.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Charlesjsharp: While that's probably normally true, Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his combined work after he was president, which probably makes this more significant. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I raised the same concern on
this talk page, and got an answer. If you have any other copyright-related question, you can probably ask Batoul84, who answered my question, or—per the image's page—ask on Wiki Palestine's
talk page.
FunLater (
talk) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wonderful. With the copyright question cleared up, I'll support for the compositon and usefulness.
Bremps... 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – Whatever its copyright status, this image of a spot news event seems too ephemeral for the POTD ethos, and could be considered POV in the context of the ongoing
Israel–Hamas War. –
Sca (
talk) 13:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
FunLater,
FP criterion #5 says "it is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article". The image isn't stable in
its primary article ("primary" in the context of adding significant encyclopedic value to an article, FP criterion #5).
Bammesk (
talk) 19:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to support, but am inclined to think this should be given a week or so to have usage settle down before voting. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 05:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Bremps... 05:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I stumbled upon this painting by chance, and thought it pertinent given the situation in Israel right now. Please judge the painting on its own, however.
Bremps... 05:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support – although the resolution (pixel count) can be higher with today's technology. Not sure I agree with "pertinent given the situation" comment, because
WP:FPC is not news.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Even though the resolution of the picture is not that high (as Bammesk mentioned), many details are more or less "vivid". –
Hamid Hassani (
talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Adam, the google project image has a file size of 2.18 MB. The nom image is 1.06 MB, it's probably more compressed. I say the google project image is better. I couldn't see a visual difference on my screen though.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I've just uploaded over with the less compressed version. SupportAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 04:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2023 at 05:52:24 (UTC)
Reason
Added to the
National Film Registry in 2000, this 1915 film feared to be lost until being found in the 1970s is one of the first full-length gangster films. And this is a very clean print of said movie.
Support – Interesting use of cross dissolves, circular and wide-screen mattes, as well as toned and tinted scenes. --
Janke |
Talk 09:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2023 at 02:05:29 (UTC)
Reason
Lead image in the
Ice eggs article. The technical quality isn't ideal, but this is a rare phenomenon that occurs at low temperatures. Not a common occurrence to photograph. See the Commons nom:
[3] for a discussion of the technical quality.
Support as nominator –
Bammesk (
talk) 02:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support - top EV. --
Janke |
Talk 09:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. To borrow the words of one of the commenters at the Commons FPC, this is a case of "extraordinary wow trumps anything else".
Choliamb (
talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Article is a 164-word stub. Not suitable for Main Page promotion. And the 'eggs' look like rocks. –
Sca (
talk) 13:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, good photo of rare phenomenon.
Artem.G (
talk) 21:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, wow. –
SJ + 02:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello, I would like to nominate Disney's animated short film
Steamboat Willie which has not been uploaded yet. The reason is that the film will
famously enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2024 and I would like to showcase it on the Main Page on that exact day (I would upload it on Commons on the evening of 31 December 2023). I know that this is unorthodox, but it would be a really cool way to celebrate Public Domain Day next year. What do you think? --
Gnom (
talk) 06:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Gnom (
talk) 06:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with a BIG caveat: In order to avoid any copyright infringement, even one ever so small, it should not be viewable anywhere until January 1st at 00:00 local time. Does the Wiki software actually time the front page view to the actual date/time of the page viewer's location? And how to decide exactly when to upload to Commons? 00:00 according to UTC, or PST - assuming the latter is the time zone for the original copyright? Or even the earliest time zone possible, that of
Kiribati, i.e. UTC +14 - which means the upload would be legal at least somewhere on the earth... (This is only half in jest!) --
Janke |
Talk 09:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose until the file is actually uploaded. While I support the premise of the nomination in principle, I can't support something until I see what the Main Page readers will see.
MER-C 19:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Well, you can see the film itself via the YT link above, and the Main Page text can actually be proposed here... perhaps with the help of MP editors? It would be fun to have it at the first possible moment! --
Janke |
Talk 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think MER-C means that you can’t just download a file from YouTube and upload it directly to Commons. You have to convert the file to a format that’s compatible with Commons, and that conversion can have adverse effects on the video if not properly done. Regards,
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, and to add to that someone is likely to release a much higher quality version of this movie on January 1.
MER-C 19:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose, at least with the proposed source. While I appreciate the sentiment, the YouTube version, at 360p, is too low in quality to meet the FP criteria. And the historic exception argument doesn't quite hold, as the low resolution is a limitation imposed on this digital version, not inherent to the original format. Surely there are archives in possession of the original film prints who will be able to publish higher quality conversions once the copyright finally lapses? There may also be issues over the creativity and copyrightability of the restoration work itself, if such work took place as part of the digitisation. Altogether, I don't think it's practically possible to have Steamboat Willie as POTD for 1 January, so better just take the usual route and nominate it when it's ready (and maybe discuss making an exception for jumping the POTD queue to feature it as early as possible then). --
Paul_012 (
talk) 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd have to oppose uploading it December 31st, when it's still in copyright. I'd suggest the earliest we can go for is January 2nd. The copyright law is a little vague as to the exact time of changeover online, where there's many timezones. The servers are in Florida and California, I believe, which means we technically should be careful about hosting something before midnight Pacific time, by which time it will be 8 am UTC and the POTD will have been running for 8 hours. We could do it by the same logic as the IAR for Queen Elizabeth's funeral (which might have proven controversial as every section of the main page independently got in on it, but I don't think was an issue otherwise):
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hrh Princess Elizabeth in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, April 1945 TR2832.jpg - If it's passing, and there's no opposition to it after a reasonable discussion done a few days beforehand, it can jump immediately to the next day's queue. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 21:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Paul 012 and @
Adam Cuerden, thank you for your commens – would you support a FP nomination of the Bluray version (assuming that I can find a way to upload it to Commons)?
Gnom (
talk) 13:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, as long as there's no presumption of new copyright. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.5% of all
FPs. 19:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
In principle, yes, though that's also conditional on the other issues being properly addressed. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 11:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Considering all of the discussions above, I struck my support. --
Janke |
Talk 09:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Janke and @
Geni, thank you for your comments – would you support a FP nomination of the Bluray version (assuming that I can find a way to upload it to Commons)?
Gnom (
talk) 13:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I support a January 1st upload (U.S. time) and a January 2nd POTD. I am Ok with the current 360p version on youtube
[4]. It's downloadable as MP4 and can be converted to WebM. A 1080p version can be uploaded later to overwrite it (whenever available, and with a proper license if needed for reproduction creativity and restoration).
Bammesk (
talk) 19:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Bammesk, thank you for your comment. Do you support the FP nomination (which is what this discussion is about, after all)? --
Gnom (
talk) 13:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, with the stated caveat. I changed my comment to a vote. When/if the concerns expressed above by others are addressed, regarding the feasibility of a January 1st POTD (i.e. timing), and/or a 1080p version (and its copyright if applicable), then I support those scenarios as well.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, we will address the copyright issue separately (I am a media lawyer and actually hold a PhD in copyright law, so I think that I should be able to figure this out).
Gnom (
talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I support the idea, in whatever way it is accomplished. But could we be absolutely sure that a Blu-Ray rip is copyright-free, since such a HD transfer was probably originally done by Disney? --
Janke |
Talk 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Let's wait until the file is a) actually uploaded and b) stable in the relevant articles until a FPC.
Nick-D (
talk) 10:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2023 at 12:02:04 (UTC)
Reason
While finishing up things with
Nettie Stevens, I checked Wilson - who independently discovered the Y chromosome - albeit without as much insight as Stevens had - at around the same time.
This was the lead image. So, yeah, I took it upon myself to research and restore a better image. This kind of dramatic lighting was a bit of a photographic trend a decade or so either side of 1900; This is one of the better examples, with superb facial detail.