Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

message: Hello FP friends, I am hoping to nominate my first Featured Picture, but I wanted to gather some advice as it would be my first nomination. The image I would like to nominate is  which features on the page Hibiscus Rising. My questions are:
1) I was uploading the images as part of a paid project, is it still OK to nominate them for FP? (It is for DYK, but I couldn't see a guideline for FP)
2) EV: this is a unique view of a unique sculpture - does that reflect encyclopaedic value enough? Or is the fact that there are likely to be other aerial photographs of other sculptures detract? 
Thanks very much for your advice Lajmmoore (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting feedback  

message: Just a pointer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#License fee demands for Diliff’s images since he was one of our prolific FP creator. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diliff 

message: Hi, :File:Mount Rushmore detail view (100MP).jpg was designed FP after Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Rushmore. Then it was removed from the article, and replaced by this poor quality image. I reinstated it, but Randy Kryn objects. See discussion on the article talk page. I think a FP should not be removed from the main article for which it was promoted, unless there is a consensus otherwise, and specially for such a bad quality image. Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm sorry but you are wrong. FPC criterion 3 literally means that. And it has passed a community consensus to become a FP. Hence yea, it's worthy for the lead. You can as for a delist if you think the image isn't FP worthy anymore and doesn't illustrate the topic. But till then, it's worth the addition into the lead. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: FPC doesn't preempt editorial discussion. It just takes five people to decide something is an FP (there were nine in this case), and none of them need to have any interest at all in the article. 3,105 people have edited the Mount Rushmore article, by contrast. FPC bases its decisions in part on the sometimes ephemeral editorial decisions of article editors; it doesn't preempt those decisions. That said, it's a very strong indication that an image is good, which should influence discussion on whether to replace it. Ultimately I do agree with Randy's last comment, however, that this should be on the article talk page and primarily for article editors to decide. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mount Rushmore]] 

message: Was looking at the recent ITN of the Copenhagen Stock exchange fire and wanted to see if this image, created in 1895 by a Skagen Painter by the name of Peder Severin Krøyer. 
Do you guys think that this painting is FP worthy? 
 Cowboygilbert -  (talk) ♥ 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably yes IMO. Yann (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[From Copenhagen Stock Exchange]] 

message: Is it possible to nominate two images to be 'one' featured picture? The images in question are shown at Fight-or-flight response. I understand I could edit the images to be a single image but that'd worsen the article quality. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You can nominate them as a featured picture set. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with nominating those two images are that their resolutions are too small. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. —Bruce1eetalk 09:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I took it to mean 1,500 pixels eg 500 by 300 pixels would be appropriate. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating two images?