Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2022

File:Baby tufted gray langur (Semnopithecus priam).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2022 at 18:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
Info created & uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very cute, but the focus point has missed the baby's face. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)

File:Common crab spider (Xysticus cristatus) female with prey Carniolan honey bee (Apis melifera carnica).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2022 at 09:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)
Info Seven FPs of this genus including two with prey: this one and this one. 7 images stacked. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question This seems like a scene in which the subject would be moving quite a bit. How are you doing an image stack? Is it some software in the camera that does it quickly? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Canon R6 has in-camera focus-bracketing. I use it with a monopod. There is some movement but from the spider and the wind, not to mention the photographer, so lots of attempts needed. I used to use the Helicon Tube, which was more clunky. I then select a set of images to stack in Helicon Focus 8. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lupe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, clearly an FP. Could you add the name of the flower? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone can help? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the flower might be an Eryngium species. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, and the flower is nice too -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)

File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 19:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScI, uploaded by Habitator terrae, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support Not as spectacular as the previous nomination, but I bet this will stay in history as an iconic image. -- Yann (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely going to be an iconic image per Yann. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a space buff, this really facinates me. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is hard to know when you are living the moment, but this first released image from the James Webb Space Telescope may be a sign that humankind is at a pivotal historical moment, similar to the invention of the first refracting telescope by early 17th century German-Dutch spectacle makers. More great images from this super telescope and camera to come, showing us where we came from, and possibly going to. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with featuring this for historical reasons. Did we feature Hubble's first photo, too? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann and Ikan --Kritzolina (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I think the DoF could be better ... just kidding! Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahah!! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support actually surprised the nom didn't come out before. Even the diffraction crosses are interesting here, and a consequence of the telescope unique design. - Benh (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and obviously, the caption really that picture fascinating for anyone with even little interest on general relativity and light propagation. - Benh (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. --Aristeas (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And there is already a scientific result from this image: Improved model for the mass distribution of galaxy cluster SMACS J0723.3−7327 based on Webb telescope image. Yann (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Aktion 'Aus Abfall wird Kunst' - Karlsruhe - 2022 - 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 06:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Ceramics
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this beautiful and enjoy the rhythm of looking at one object after another. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I expected that this would show up here when I saw this at QIC --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The telephoto perspective brings out the artistic value of the installation. --Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a temporary artwork, I'm afraid we should not keep it on Commons without artist's permission. Regards --A.Savin 13:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The initiator of the event is a good friend of mine and he asked me to photograph the event. He also agreed to the publication of the pictures on Commons. --Llez (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This should be properly attributed, best with a verification via support team. --A.Savin 17:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think a closeup on the middle would work even better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... --SHB2000 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, but although I like the idea of the artwork, I'm having trouble with the composition. It's begging for an overhead shot. Of course, that's probably not possible, but for something with so much geometry I'd expect more balance (if not some form of symmetry) in the choice of angle. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Sorry, there was no chance of a choice of angle. The only way to get an "aerial" view was from the City Hall balcony. This balcony is normally closed. On that day it was opened for me and a photographer from a newspaper for a short time so that we could take pictures of the action from there. This picture was taken from the same place. --Llez (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If taken as an artwork, then it shouldn't be cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition - Benh (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Ceramics

File:Alice Neilsen's production of Victor Herbert's The Fortune Teller.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2022 at 10:23:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by U.S. Lithograph Co. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well restored. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's strange the woman all the way to the left looks bored. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restoration. --Tagooty (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

File:Cimetière de St-Jean de l’Île-d’Orléans.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2022 at 19:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of our other cemetery FPs are in the “Places/Other” gallery, therefore I propose to use that gallery link here, too. --Aristeas (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree takes the focus away from the cemetery. I didn't even realise I was looking at one until I saw the title. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somewhat per above. I feel like, if you cropped about the same distance to the left and right of the tree, the composition would be better, although people might still complain that parts of the tree are too dark. Alternatively, if you had about twice as much cemetery to the left of the tree than you do now, that might be enough to balance the tree out visually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that because there are other trees that disturb the scene --Wilfredor (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Shadow on the tree is also very dark and distracting. I think I see what you might have been seeing, but the camera just didn't capture it this time. You might have had a better chance with a stronger sky. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the shadows --Wilfredor (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Apart from the too dominating tree, the graves as such look washed-out with many blown bright areas (petals and leaves of flowers). Light seems too harsh for this scene; contrast of dark tree vs. bright graves might be controlled better by a careful development from the raw file. As it is, I do not see what’s so outstanding about it, sorry. Might be QI but nothing to feature. --Kreuz schnabel 12:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new development, I appreciate the feedback, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

… and again the votings here refer to several different versions. This is most confusing. When reworking a nomination, please nominate the new one as an alternative to keep votings apart. Or either, if you don’t want to give it a different file name, withdraw your first nomination and place a fresh one. --Kreuz schnabel 19:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is necessary to upload another file despite being only a minor change over the same picture, I added comments about the changes. IMHO If someone wants to check the corrections is more easy to check the upload history --Wilfredor (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirrhia (Xanthia) icteritia - Keila.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2022 at 15:45:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question How small is this? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wingspan 31–37 mm, body length ca 10–12 mm. -- Ivar (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am mystified by the moth images that are supported and strongly opposed. This dorsal view doesn't appeal to me, but it is naturally technically well executed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mine has much bigger reso and because of this more details with pleasing evening light and compo. Everything is different here. -- Ivar (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Charles in so far as I was astonished about the ‘strong oppose’ to his moth photo, too. Strong opposes should be reserved for rare cases; they tend to say more about the voter than about the photo – the last user which had a preference for ‘strong oppose’ was later uncovered as a fraudulent revenant ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, I was astonished by that, too, and made a comment about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)

File:Exposure ('De hurkende man') Lelystad. 07-03-2022. (d.j.b) 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 15:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info Exposure ('The squatting man') Artwork by Antony Gormley. Location: Markerstrekdam, Lelystad, Netherlands.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support That structure looks very big. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I thought that light and sky are a bit boring. But in the end this is necessary to emphasize the sculpture – a dramatic sky would just distract from the sculpture, here the more uniform colours of the background make the sculpture stand out and give the image a nice “graphical” appearance. --Aristeas (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors

File:Pez peine (Xyrichtys novacula), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 33.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 19:23:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Labridae_(Wrasses)
Info Pearly razorfish (Xyrichtys novacula), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. The pearly razorfish has in average a total length of 20 cm (7.9 in). Its body is elongate and very compressed laterally, the head is flattened, with a steep profile and sharp teeth. This species is widespread throughout the western and eastern subtropical and tropical Atlantic Ocean, as well as the Mediterranean Sea. It inhabits clear, shallow littoral areas with sandy or muddy bottoms, at depths of 1 to 20 m (3 to 65 ft) and it buries itself rapidly in the bottom when disturbed. It feeds on small invertebrates such as crustaceans, mollusks and echinoderms. Note: we have no FPs of the genus Xyrichtys. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful image but poor light for FP, and low level of details in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean with the lighting, I take the lighting with me ;) and about the detail, well, it' s a pretty small fish Poco a poco (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dull light in my view, like washed out. Concerning the focus, the depth of field is very shallow, and because the fish is leaving, it gives the feeling to have a blurry tail in front -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice, but you mixed up the description with the image above. --Yann (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you, Poco a poco (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely soft colors. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the fish and understand that it is small as mentioned above, but the image is still very blurry at pixel level. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:臺江國家公園頂頭額沙洲.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 07:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Taiwan
Info created and uploaded by Cheetah mi - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy, and no wow really. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful. Don't really get how it's busy, but whatever. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty scene, except for the garbage washed up on the shore, but this gives an accurate record of it. I've thought about the light, and I'm content with this as a record of how the light was at the time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a dream or a Dalí painting. --Aristeas (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition, light, and mood work for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great thumbnail but at full size the large amount of litters covering the horizon at the left ruins the charm. I can't see this image printed as a poster, for example. Dream aspect at first glance, then sad reality at the end -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basile has given an excellent description. But doesn’t this contrast make the photo even more important? Because it shows exactly what we, the great homo sapiens sapiens species, have made this earth: it is still wonderful from a distance, but damaged, destroyed, and full of litter everywhere when one takes a closer look. This becomes most obvious in a photo like this which looks like a dream from afar, but full of waste when looking closer. --Aristeas (talk)

Comment I agree, but the concept of the landscape as an idealized picture of the countryside dates back to at least ancient Roman times, when people who moved to Rome or other cities and were too far from countryside to see it anymore liked to have pictures of it in their houses. So I think this is a reasonable philosophical disagreement about what a landscape should be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The rubbish and the photographer. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--per Basile Morin, also the right edge is a bit blurry. -- Tiouraren (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good at thumbnail size, but not excellent per others. --Tagooty (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama vom Knopfmacherfelsen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2022 at 20:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info Panoramic view from the Knopfmacherfelsen in the Upper Danube Nature Park. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love diverse landscapes like this one. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. It's a nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive view, excellent panorama. (Would it be possible to dial down exposure of the rocks at the left a bit? They are so bright that one cannot see much of their structure.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, but I still see room for improvement, the buildings in the back on the left are slightly tilted in ccw direction Poco a poco (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. --Tagooty (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg

File:Familiar bluets mating (72568).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2022 at 12:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Coenagrionidae_(Narrow-winged_Damselflies)
Info all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you have one without the leaf behind the damsels? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I would've nominated that one. :P Though it would be better without that leaf, the contrast is strong enough and subject sharp enough that I think it's still worth a star, though. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid I find it too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marbled whites (Melanargia galathea) female form procida underside Istria.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2022 at 17:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info Three women in white having a really good day! 3 existing FPs of single butterflies. This is not a focus-stack. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background distracts me. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ghosts should be cleaned up.--Ermell (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see this image as worthy of FP, but first the issue mentioned by Ermell should be fixed. Ghosting is obvious in the stem of the plant and the left butterfly. -- IamMM (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh midday summer light, busy background, sharpness could be better and resolution higher. -- Ivar (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I was not going to nominate until I saw comments at QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing ghosting. Honestly, I think this nomination could have continued until the end and had a good chance to pass, but your decision to withdraw is respected. Added to my list to give this image another chance in FPC later. -- IamMM (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Door detail in Prague.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 20:56:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info created by Tomascastelazo - uploaded by Tomascastelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where exactly in Prague is this? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Please add a better description, though. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose Unidentified spot, and I don't think it's more than a usual "from below" shot of a sculpture. --A.Savin 14:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have taken the liberty to propose another gallery link – this detail fits better into our Architectural elements gallery page. --Aristeas (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is fine, but sorry, I'm having trouble finding the "wow" in either the subject or comp. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and could stand perspective correction (possible despite being taken from below). Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganymede - Perijove 34 Composite.png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 09:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin M. Gill - uploaded by Tiouraren - nominated by The NMI User -- The NMI User (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking "that's not even a full moon; that's not so good", and then I realized the moon was Ganymede! Beautiful, detailed image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather promote a JPEG version. Yann (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Yann. In favor of edited version — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to create an alt that's JPEG. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG Version

Info After comment by Yann, converted image to JPEG format. Everyone please check image to make sure I uploaded with proper information (Source, description, etc.) Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy to support this version, too. Why are JPGs preferable to PNGs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The way a JPG image is formatted makes it more suitable for a real-life image, whereas PNGs are more suited for clip-art and other images requiring less colors. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, PNGs can also be used for archival versions of photos (because PNG uses a looseless compression), but for displaying them in Wikis, a JPEG version works better with most photos, because the JPEG file of a photo is (normally) smaller and the MediaWiki software renders a better preview of it. --Aristeas (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for the JPEG version, Urban Versis 32! --Aristeas (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support All these years and every time I hear "Ganymede" I still think of Farmer in the Sky ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A moon to dream under --Kritzolina (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Natural satellites

The chosen alternative is: File:Ganymede - Perijove 34 Composite.jpg

File:RhB ABe 4-16 Capricorn Davos Wolfgang - Davos Laret.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2022 at 06:14:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by David Gubler - uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 06:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 06:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Postcard idyll. -- -donald- (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The train makes it even more idyllic. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't resist them. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles.--Ermell (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Nice landscape! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition from a great viewpoint. Eye catching red train in the greenery -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall excellent. --Tagooty (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Makes me want to pack my bags.;) MartinD (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Slow Life in A Tea House 01 edited.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2022 at 20:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info This characterful photo of a Chinese teahouse is one I've had my eye on for the FPC nomination for quite some time. An atmospheric mood that reminds me of the paintings by John Sloan. But it could also be a still from a movie.
Created and uploaded by Liming Huang. Derived version uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality given the ligthing conditions, original and interesting, you got my support Poco a poco (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this slice of life and plan to support, but there are some halos in front of the back door on the left that I think should be eliminated. I wonder whether others would agree with that, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Many thanks for your notice, Ikan. I have eliminated some halos at the xy coordinates (700,1970). In addition, I removed some remaining color fringes as best I could. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, but to be clear, I meant the green halo on the man in front of the back door. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for your notice, Ikan. Removed halos at the xy coordinates (2430,1950). Now it was clear to me which part you meant, I misunderstood you at first. But not bad, so I was able to fix several more flaws :) Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting image, something different than our usual content. Thanks for finding this and improving it! --Kritzolina (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco a Poco. --Aristeas (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco. -- IamMM (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Another image I'd characterize as something you'd see in National Geographic ... God! I daresay that this image has actually managed to capture contemporary China in one shot, especially the everyday China that few tourists go out of their way to see (but I did once, when my wife and I stumbled into a wet market in Shenzhen, where unsurprisingly we drew a lot of double takes as very rarely seen "ocean people" in that context. That's the difference between being a traveler and a tourist).
I really like the juxtaposition of the old and the new here ... the grungy walls which no production designer, no matter how observant and talented, could quite match (and the exposed bulbs and creaky-looking ceiling fans), the men seated around their tables talking and interacting, as they and their forebears likely have for at least a few centuries in some analogous way, but with a few them engrossed in their phones, and the one woman in the image, ordering two of something, seemingly at ease in what I have to assume, from the image and my experience, is a very male-coded social space. Good job, both to the original photographer and the nominator cleaning it up! Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks for your interesting personal insights as well as the detailed and precise description with which you have aptly characterized the fascination for this great capture. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Daniel. Not the pixel-perfect photo we usually see here, but this is the kind of imagery that tells a story and moves people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per praise above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions

File:Fontana di Trevi by TC.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 01:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Fountains
Info. Al by --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharp image of an interesting subject. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link added. --Aristeas (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little noisy, and some faint CA, but I like the dramatic lighting. BTW: May want to rename the file after the nomination -- there is an errant space after the colon. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thank you for spotting that space! I have done the renaming and hope that I have found and updated all links accordingly. --Aristeas (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rhododendrites. It's a good photo but I feel like for this kind of subject that's stationary (and maybe especially such a famous one), no or virtually no noise is what we expect at FPC, nowadays. But watch me be overruled; I wouldn't be surprised. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This photo is a good pars pro toto for the Fontana di Trevi, much more impressive than almost all of the countless total views; and the light is special, it gives the photo a nice dramatic touch. However for a 2018 photo of a static subject the detail resolution could be better; this may be connected to the ISO speed (the 80D is a very good camera, but seems it is already quite noisy at ISO 400). --Aristeas (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought about it for a while. Yes, there is noise in the image. But I like the overall position with the detail of the fountain. --XRay 💬 08:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Ikan. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Fountains

File:Hawfinch (Coccothraustes coccothraustes) juvenile 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2022 at 08:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Fringillidae (Finches and Allies)
Info The UK’s 'largest, rarest and most elusive finch' which I have only seen in Hungary. No FPs of this species. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Siam2019 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Fringillidae (Finches and Allies)

File:นักล่า.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2022 at 07:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cuon alpinus with prey and a Varanus salvator

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Canidae_(Canids)
Info created & uploaded by User:รัชพงศ์ ดีมาก - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this image special. We see a beautiful dhole - an endangered canid species - eating what looks to be a wild boar, with a pretty monitor lizard swimming nearby, and not only was the photograph shot at an opportune moment, but the dhole and the carcass are completely sharp and the monitor lizard is almost as sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very special Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Siam2019 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Charles. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, this must've been really hard to take. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wild! -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An educational work to illustrate the food chain. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Canidae_(Canids)

File:Adenium Obesum Flower Buds Side Macro Jul22 D72 24337-434 ZS P.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2022 at 05:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Apocynaceae
Info Flower and buds of adenium obesum (desert rose), showing various parts of the flower. Focus stack of 98 images.
Created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Central part looks slightly overexposed to me (just an impression, not necessarily true – is the blueish tone real?), and something went wrong in focus stacking, there’s considerable "ghosting" in the details as if there was some motion involved. --Kreuz schnabel 07:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel: Thanks for the review. The central part is not overexposed as per the histogram. The colours are realistic, I don't see a bluish tone on my Macbook's Retina display. Could you mark the ghosting, please? --Tagooty (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s all over the tiny hairs around the center pistils. --Kreuz schnabel 16:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange. Focus-stacked but not in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, image at pixel level is blurry. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, oversatured, out of focus... --Wilfredor (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on the issues. --Tagooty (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australasian Shoveler - Goulds Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2022 at 09:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Spatula
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 15:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Spatula

File:Caesium Chloride.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2022 at 04:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and Minerals
Info created and uploaded by KarlGaff - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's really pretty, but how does a compound with only two elements produce so many colors? I guess these colors were shined through the film. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The colours arise because of the birefringence exhibited by the crystalline film. When a sample possessing birefringence in its crystalline structure is viewed in between two crossed-polarisers, you will see beautiful colours. The colours depend on several factors including the thickness at each point and the orientation of the crystal axis with respect to the optic axis of the microscope. When a wave plate is inserted in the optical path of the microscope, it introduces a phase shift in the light beams, ultimately producing colour. Different waveplate thicknesses can give different colour palettes. Colour is not artificially applied, it's derived by the physics and chemistry of the sample and setup. KarlGaff (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support At first glance I thought this was a silk shawl or a similar fabric. Fascinating to learn this is something totally different, but as Ikan pointed out, really pretty. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. New to me, but there are other similar examples on Google. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional and beautiful. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I second Kritzolina's take, but there are areas I wish were a little sharper, and some purple fringing that I think could be more effectively suppressed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Professeur Metchnikoff, portrait du scientifique dans un laboratoire de recherche.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2022 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Creator:Agence Rol - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though there are still some very small (probably pixel-level) spots that you could remove. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice environmental portrait. --Aristeas (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. A few remaining spots, especially on the right side, could be stamped out. Otherwise a fine restoration, as usual. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and Radomianin: Should have got it. Though it's mean to ask me to look at old artwork. Like any artist, I hate my past self's work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks for perfecting your old work :) Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, even that much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent environmental portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People_at_work

File:PuckMagazine16May1906.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 23:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Magazine and newspaper illustrations in color
Info Cropped slightly to eliminate the image background.
Support -- Heh. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose someone will ask who Aldrich was, so a Wikipedia link and/or short explanation would be good, but the illustration is clear enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who wants to know here, Aldrich was an extremely powerful Republican U.S. Senator from Rhode Island who chaired the Finance Committee in the early 20th century. In that capacity, as depicted here, he bottled up bills pushed by reformers of the era that big business disliked. (He is perhaps best remembered for a) creating the Federal Reserve system, and b) lending his name to Nelson Rockefeller, his grandson.
Interestingly, while we have a category for his house, a National Historic Landmark in Providence that I think I was the first to photograph for Wikimedia years ago, we do not have one for him. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The man from Gianyar (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Printed#Magazine and newspaper illustrations in color

File:Rosa floribunda 'Fée des Neiges' in Jardin des 5 sens (2).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 15:46:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition and lighting are not optimal and the definiiton is not as we are used to seeing these days. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. -- Karelj (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Some of the noise and CA could be reduced; I think the highlights on the flower could stand to come down a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support By chance I know this cultivar, its unobtrusive beauty and its delicate, discreet scent; for it this rather poetic photograph with selective DoF is quite appropriate. Like Daniel I think the highlights could be dialed down a bit. --Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charlesjsharp, the petals of the middle rose are kind of messy and disturbing. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really wrong with it, but not outstanding either. Good QI though. --Kreuz schnabel 16:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tallinn asv2022-04 img24 Kadriorg Park.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2022 at 16:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Estonia
Info Pond (Luigetiik) with island and pavilion in Kadriorg Park, Tallinn --- all by me --A.Savin 16:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but would be even better with more of the reflection in the water --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The birds, nicely scattered over the islet and the pavillon, are a nice extra and give the whole photo a peaceful touch. --Aristeas (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to dissent, and I thought about this for a while (a few days, really): the trees are interesting, but I don't like the one that blocks the view of the pavilion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek and to be honest I cannot find anything extraordinary here, quality is good, lighting and subject are ok, but nothing wild that makes this one of our best images in the project, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the early-spring mood ... always that feeling that someone woke nature up when nature wanted to sleep in some more. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schrödinger's vote? --A.Savin 23:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment double voting is not accepted. -- Ivar (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer.H, do you support or oppose? You can't do both (or maybe you can, but then your votes cancel out). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan Kekek. -- Karelj (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Tagooty (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Ivar (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Estonia

File:Ela Stein-Weissberger at Holocaust Remembrance Day 2013.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2022 at 07:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Lance Cheung - uploaded by Kritzolina - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive portrait, pity it’s so noisy. I’d crop off the rightmost 10 percent to get rid of that strange outline of her suit. --Kreuz schnabel 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressive for me. Technical quality showing its age. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel and Charles. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)]][reply]

Alternative Version

Info I uploaded a new version that hopefully adresses some of the issues mentioned above --Kritzolina (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this is really an FP, but please nominate it at COM:VIC if it's the best portrait of her on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ikan, I am aware of the technical problems with this portrait, I still think it is an very powerful image of an amazing woman. I don't think nominating it for Valued image is useful though, as we only have two pictures of her at all and the other category seems too broad to me. Kritzolina (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good picture. I actually think both photos of her could be good VIs. Maybe I'll nominate them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still has technical issues. And even beyond them, it does not stand out from other contemporary portrait photos. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still not impressive for me. Technical quality showing its age. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination. I still would like to ask users who stated this was not impressive to them, what exactly makes a portrait of a woman impressive in their eyes. I see a lot of images on that gallery page of portaits of women that show a lot less character and personality then this shot. You do not have to tell your thoughts out publicly, but please ask yourself - what makes a portrait of a woman stand out to you? --Kritzolina (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a very good portrait, and it certainly touches me, but I think that everyone who had problems with the photo as an FP except for Daniel was concerned solely with technical issues. Had the photo been much more nearly devoid of noise, I think there's a good chance that it would have passed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me it just didn't make me want to know more about who she was ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you want to find out more about most of who the other women in that gallery are? Or who the men in their gallery are? Is that the point of an FP portait for you? --Kritzolina (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly read the concerns as purely about the technical shortcomings from your comment, Ikan, but not so sure about others. If all "not impressive" votes are meant like this, then I am happy. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not just technical shortcomings for me. A portrait should do justice to the sitter. This does not. The eyes, for instance. And I can tell you that my pictures of pretty birds and butterflies do much better at FP than drab ones. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to find out more about how you're reacting to this portrait. What are you noticing about the eyes, and what strikes you as drab? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kritzolina, I am sorry that you have withdrawn your nomination. I had abstained from voting on this photo, but just for pure technical reasons. Apart from the technical quality I think this is a good portrait photograph of a very impressive personality. Please do not stop to nominate such and other photos here – we need some change from our usual subjects, and especially we need nominators who open our (masculine?) fixation on technical perfection, “wow” photos and flawless beauty. This photo has something which is missing from many of our featured female portraits: it shows character. --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to endorse Aristeas' comments here. The portrait image of this remarkable personality has expressiveness and character. I tried to do an even better denoising, but unfortunately the technical source quality is just not good enough. For this reason, I too have abstained from reviewing it. I look forward to your future contributions, by which you make an important support to diversity. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellowstone National Park (WY, USA), Old Faithful Geyser -- 2022 -- 2599.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2022 at 08:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Volcanism
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you take down the noise level on the sky? -- Ivar (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for your suggestion. Noise reduction was already done in the sky, but I improved the noise reduction. Additionally I reduced the sharpness in the blue parts of the sky. --XRay 💬 08:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noise is still notable, can you reduce it even more? (imo there is no need to sharpen the blue sky at all). -- Ivar (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done The noise reduction was already on a very high level. I have now tried a completely different approach (masking of the blue sky, noise reduction, blurring) with another tool. --XRay 💬 15:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ezarateesteban 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive natural spectacle. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena#Volcanism

File:Vancouver (BC, Canada), Canada Place -- 2022 -- 1906 (bw).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2022 at 07:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 07:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 07:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 16:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice rhythm of the sails. --Aristeas (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good choice for grayscale as it would probably have seemed too busy in color. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada

File:Veles Volos.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2022 at 08:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Paganism
Info created by Mhapon - uploaded by Mhapon - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why no colors? Also for such artworks, we need a confirmation of the license by email. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The file should mention when the artwork was made, what medium was used, and should link the artist if there's a Wikipedia page about him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain until proper information on licensing, etc. is obtained. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per Urban. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the style of the illustration and understand that is intentionally black-and-white, but like Ikan I would appreciate some more information. Regarding the licensing I understand that the uploader thought no further confirmation was necessary (if it is really their own work), but we would be on the save side with an additional confirmation by the usual process. Has anybody contacted Mhapon? --Aristeas (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morenas negras (Muraena augusti), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 52.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2022 at 21:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)
Info Moray eels (Muraena augusti) and a cleaner shrimp (Lysmata grabhami), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. It belongs to the family of moray eel and is endemic of the Canary Islands, Madeira and Azores. It is non-migratory, and dwells at a depth range of 0 to 250 metres (0 to 820 ft), most often at around 0 to 50 metres (0 to 164 ft). Muraena augusti is active during the night and hides in holes or crevices during the day. It can reach up to 100 centimetres (39 in) length and is a carnivore that feeds on small fishes, shrimps and crabs. Like all other moray eels their vision is poor but their sense of smell extraordinary. We have 2 FPs of this genus, this one of the same species and this one of another species but same genus. In both cases you can only see the head of one moray, here we can see more than that and as add-on there is a second one. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put this great shot through Topaz Denoise AI and, to my eyes, the result was a huge improvement. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see that version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, Charlesjsharp, and thank you for working on it! I'll also work on it on Saturday and may upload a new version --Poco a poco (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Charlesjsharp, I looked closer into it and applied similar changes (I found the denoising a tad to much, so not going that far) specially in terms of denoising and compensating the "critical areas" with some sharpening. I like indeed the result overall and I'm therefore happy that you uploaded that version. If somebody prefers your version, I would add it as an alternative to the original nom. Poco a poco (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer his version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- IamMM (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fish look very creepy though... --SHB2000 (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~-- Radomianin (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO this version looks much more “real”. --Aristeas (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, due to noise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Ivar (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alt edit

Comment Here are additional version uploaded by Charlesjsharp using Topaz AI for denoising. Ikan Kekek should I ping everybody? Poco a poco (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Florstein, Schnobby, Urban Versis 32, IamMM, Famberhorst, SHB2000, Llez, Agnes Monkelbaan, and Daniel Case: Ok, pinging those who may have not seen the new version with more denoising Poco a poco (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support yes, all the voters should be pinged. -- Ivar (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the alternative version which is a real improvement. I have moved my support to this one. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I find the noise of the previous version acceptable anyway. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Denoising has improved the swinging areas of the fish's body, I prefer this one. -- IamMM (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I honestly like the other one better, it seems more natural. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support My favorite version.--Ermell (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)

The chosen alternative is: File:Morenas negras (Muraena augusti), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 52.jpg

File:Waste block turbine and generator in Iru Thermal Power Plant.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2022 at 00:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Estonia
Info created & uploaded by Lauri Veerde - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting and an excellent image. It would be good for some of these images to be nominated at Com:Vic, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow... really impressive work. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea on the expectations of this type of shot, but the man (there for scale) and the machinery around him are out of focus which ruins it, because that's where your eye goes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of focus? Are you sure? Kruusamägi (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support 360 view is great! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, excellent shot! --SHB2000 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alex Florstein. --Aristeas (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SHB2000. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support So ... industrial. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! MartinD (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Industry#Estonia

File:Морозний ранок над Яремчею.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2022 at 17:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created and uploaded by Vian - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 17:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beautiful. But what are the diagonal striations in the upper left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are posterizing effects (banding) that can occur, for example, during post-processing. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So maybe they can also be removed in post-processing. Vian, would you like to try? (Edit: Unfortunately, they haven't been on this site since 2020. Anyone want to try their hand at this?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, it's fixable by careful softening and graining processes if the area is clear. In this case it is quite complex because the fine details of the branches with the snow would suffer. In my experience, a lot of masking work would have to be invested to protect those details from processing. But maybe another user has a more creative, faster solution. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a problem with the snow or branches, so though I don't know how to fix the problem, I would suggest selecting the sky and not touching the snow or the branches in the process. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done as I suggested above: Posterization/Banding in the upper left area reduced. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: Regarding the edit, I left a message on the author's talk page. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be nice to be able to see the RAW image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Support Very beautiful. I am bothered a bit by the posterization in the top left corner; but we have promoted more photos with a little bit of posterization in the sky, often it is not even visible on many monitors, and therefore it seems tolerable in this case, too. --Aristeas (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to full support because of Radomianin’s removal of the posterization – thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --SHB2000 (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peaceful, beautiful scenery. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay 💬 08:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Ukraine

Image:Kirchturmfenster IMG 2596.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2022 at 17:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, reflections on window. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition of (available) light. --XRay 💬 08:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Urban. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unconvinced this is an FP, but I'd like to give it a little love. I think there's enough light for this to work well artistically (part of what we're looking at, I think, is a representation of the Medieval idea of the light that shines through the stained glass windows as analogous to the jewels of Heaven, so for that to be the only light in the darkness has metaphoric power), it's a good idea, and it's a good composition. I may vote for it later or may not, though, because there's a difference between liking a photo and considering it one of the very best on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said, I like this photo, and it's a good photo, but ultimately, I don't think it's an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnia pavonia caterpillar, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2022 at 18:26:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Dorsal view
Side view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Saturniidae_(Saturniids)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set; great work! There are two small red pixel clusters in side view version at the xy coordinates (3830,2030) px. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. -- Ivar (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I didn't notice the stray pixels until I looked for them. Very impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you make the caterpillar the same size in both photos please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Ivar (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful set of images. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique. --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Saturniidae_(Saturniids)

File:Eesti Kaevandusmuuseum. Väliekspositsioon.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2022 at 16:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Estonia
Info created & uploaded by Lauri Veerde - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent panoramic capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. (I first thought that this photo was not as sharp as Lauri Veerde’s other panomarics, but it was obviously just an issue with the panorama viewer, the original image has good resolution and sharpness. Strange, until now the panoramic viewer worked well for me. I just make a note of this because it’s good to be warned that the viewer seems to work sometimes well, sometimes not – this is important when judging photos.) --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like how everything is distorted in this pic. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000: This is 360° panorama. Look this image in here. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh didn't realise that.

Support. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Industry#Estonia

File:Kloster Limburg - Bad Dürkheim 15.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2022 at 13:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had to look at this picture a few times because it is so an unusual format, but it has grown for me. The vertical lines are a tiny bit tilted inwards, but I think that’s good in this extreme verticality, exactly vertical walls often look artificial in such a situation. The very top of the building is a little bit soft, but that’s not bad at this resolution, it’s more important that the rest is really sharp. I would just suggest to remove two very blurry birds (?) from the sky and a handkerchief (?) from the lawn (see image notes). --Aristeas (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and thanks for the review --Llez (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly tempered support I do have to work a bit sometimes not to be distracted by that shadow up front. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info If you look at google maps you will see, that the Kloster Limburg is located in a forest. The photo was taken from the forest border at a time, when the shadows were short. At other times the shadwos are more longer. It was also not possible to go further back to get a flatter angle of view because of the forest trees which then hide the building. --Llez (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany

File:Musée d'Orsay and Pont Royal, Paris 13 June 2021.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2022 at 16:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info created by Pierre Blaché - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Sebring12Hrs -- Sebring12Hrs (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sebring12Hrs (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Pretty composition and beautiful warm light, but are we sure that shade of yellow is correct? I don't ever remember seeing quite that color in the sky. It seems too green, maybe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second version of the picture, with a perspective improvment (by Paris 16). The sky is more yellow in this second version than the first. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Au contraire! To my eyes, at least, it is now more green and seems oversaturated by comparison with the original, in which the colors look more natural. I'm going to have to oppose for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 08:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colours may be true, but it does look off to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 18:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pepino de mar (Holothuria fuscogilva), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 119.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2022 at 05:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Phylum_:_Echinodermata
Info White teatfish (Holothuria fuscogilva), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. This species of sea cucumber, also known as white teeth, is found in shallow waters near islands and around coral reefs in the tropical waters of the Indo-Pacific ocean. Juvenile cucumbers live in shallower waters (such as inter-tidal zones) and then migrate to deeper waters as they mature. Adult cucumbers weigh between 2.4 and 4 kilograms. They are oval in shape and have a firm texture. This species cucumber has lateral papillae (teats) which are often buried in the sand. As it's consumed as a food and is part of a large commercial fishery across its range, it was listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List in 2010 due to overfishing. Note: we have no FPs of the whole class Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Phylum_:_Echinodermata

File:The Burning of the USS Missouri in Gibraltar.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2022 at 09:57:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1800-1850
Info Thomas Goldsworthy Dutton's lithograph of Edward Duncan's artwork based on George Pechell Mends' sketch. Restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can't we crop the extra space on the right, left, and top? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we could, but I don't think it'd look very good. For one thing, that signature on the bottom right would be cut off, and for another, this is kind of the intended layout (very intended: there's actually a note asking for roughly this crop on the unrestored original, except not very squarely laid out, so I adjusted). Lithographs have borders, and having it cropped to the image with a little... tag for the bit at the bottom with the text looks weird to me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1800-1850

File:Zaaddozen van een schijnpapaver (Meconopsis cambrica) 26-06-2022. (d.j.b).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2022 at 15:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Papaveraceae
Info Seed pods of a Meconopsis cambrica, Welsh poppy. Focus stack of 59 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose very nice compo, but large part of the seed head in the center is out of focus. Did you shoot only one serie? -- Ivar (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The seed pods were wet. I have another series, but I have yet to edit it. Thanks for the suggestion.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ In favor of alt — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Comment better, but imo color temperature 7500 (try 5500) is too high and above the seed head in the center is one dark green cloning error. -- Ivar (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction. Thank you for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me. --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge improvement and impressive, considering the size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the improved, alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Papaveraceae

The chosen alternative is: File:Zaaddozen van een schijnpapaver (Meconopsis cambrica) 26-06-2022. (d.j.b).jpg 02.jpg

File:Fruit Bat Falls - Jardine River National Park.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2022 at 07:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#Queensland
Info created by Ovico - uploaded by Ovico - nominated by SHB2000. Just stumbled across this; I'm a bit biased in nominating this as I'm someone who loves to dip their feet into low-lying waters like this, but it really is another case of less is more. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has a cellphony quality to it, confirmed when I looked at the EXIF (but some camera photos look cellphony, too): it'll be easier for someone else to analyze the shortcomings than I, but they would appear to be a combination of unsharpness, noise, posterization and oversaturation. But yes, a nice spot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it’s a mix of all this. No need for further analyzing. Nice spot certainly but not an outstanding image of it. --Kreuz schnabel 10:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: insufficient quality --Kreuz schnabel 10:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Nevin-aladag-villa-stuck-tusch.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2022 at 10:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs>
Info created by Kaethe17 - uploaded by Kaethe17 - nominated by Kaethe17 -- Kaethe17 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kaethe17 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality image to me but not an interesting enough subject to be an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The German Wikipedia article on artist Nevin Aladağ states that this is a continuation of a large-scale installation in which an old 19th-century cannonball was used as a model for the note heads, representing the opening sequence from Mozart's Turkish March, one of the best-known examples of Orientalism in Western European culture. In my humble opinion, I find the picture FP-worthy in its simple, graphic composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful exactly in its simplicity, impressive with the backgroundknowledge Radomianin gave us. We do not have that many works of art from contemporary artists on commons, getting them to agree to publish under a free licence is not easy, so also important under this aspect. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. Many thanks to Radomianin for the explanation! --Aristeas (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Plain C Major. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or A minor or some other arpeggio, but without a clef or ledger lines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The installation 'reproduces' Mozart, but this image does not. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first, this looked like marbles on lines – until I realised these were musical notes (the darker marble takes the focus away at first). --SHB2000 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Radomianin (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs

File:Wilde Karde IMG 6569.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2022 at 08:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Caprifoliaceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why not take more care with the background? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background doesn't bother me. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong noise and a tight crop as well as some pp errors do not make it a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is not the only problem. Too noisy for an FP of a plant in 2022. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – too noisy considering its less than 10 megapixels, and crop is very tight on the left. --Kreuz schnabel 16:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Love the flower (it looks like a microphone) but the background gets in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Radomianin (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosette, Titles of Shah Jahan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2022 at 08:29:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Book illustrations in color
Info created by unknown author/Metropolitan Museum of Art - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for finding this and suggesting it! --Kritzolina (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Please change "Sha Jahan" to "Shah Jahan" after the nomination passes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- IamMM (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support bewitchingly beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ahmad^talk 20:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Printed#Book illustrations in color

File:Marburg asv2022-02 img18 Castle.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2022 at 16:27:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info Remote view of the Landgrave's castle (en:Marburger Schloss), Marburg, Hesse; all by me. --A.Savin 16:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique. --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The building is striking enough that an ordinary gray sky is an excellent background for it, especially since there nevertheless is good light on the facade. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works, I think, because the brick is so pale. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Daniel. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and architecture -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there any way to make this image more vibrant? If so, would it make the overall image look better? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany

File:Town hall of Thonon-les-Bains (5).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2022 at 16:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you were trying for but a) it's kind of busy this way and b) the long exposure would have worked a lot better if it hadn't been breezy, so you wouldn't have the blurred treetop and flags. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Daniel, image is not suitable for FP. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you feel the need to strongly oppose images that although perhaps not FPs are good photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question "Not suitable"? What do you mean? Sounds like "should never have been nominated" to me, and I really cannot see that. It’s a good photograph at least, we’ve got poorer candidates running without remarks like this. --Kreuz schnabel 11:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:TÅGAB Rc2 6 Ölme.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2022 at 15:09:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info ccreated & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar Ivar (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good, and this is more about the train(s) than many of Kabelleger's other pictures, which often feature huge panoramas with trains in them. I think there should be additional categories for the bales and the farm vehicle, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 21:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Close up of a hippopotamus.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2022 at 12:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. According to the scars, the creature has already had to face quite a few confrontations. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think half a hippo is necessary, but the overexposed water is the real problem. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles – I miss the back part. chromatic aberration should be fixable. Good overall quality but nothing exceptional --Kreuz schnabel 16:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't care about the water; it's part of the background and doesn't distract me. The hippo is sharp, and I respond to the tough animal turning its head to face me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness is fine, but the light unappealing in my view, with harsh zones in the water. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
chromatic aberration --Wilfredor (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the CA, and what color? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a tiny amount of green CAs at the top border, and an even smaller amount at the left and bottom borders of the hippopotamus’ body. Should I fix them? --Aristeas (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even when I'm looking for the CAs, they are extremely narrow and hard to see. Fix them if you like, but I could understand why you might not want to devote time to that unless anyone says they'd change their vote on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak support~~ Support In (human) portrait photography, many people hold the view that an overexposed background is OK, and per Ikan I would tolerate it in this animal portrait, too. Sharpness is good. The CAs are extremely minor, and I can fix them if anybody wants. The right crop … is a bit odd, but it contributes to concentrate the photo on the head and facial expression of the hippo. And that is the main point of this photo: maybe this is a matter of taste, but I am really impressed by it, it’s just so very hippo. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC) — Changed to support because minor issues have been fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Uploaded an edit by Radomianin over the original that fixes the CA and exposure. Aristeas is very right about the crop, there is a place for a full body shot but a close up like this that shows the battle scars, the hairs and the overall might of the beast is what I like about it --Muhammad (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, Radomianin for improving the image, and Muhammad for uploading the new version! And yes, the crop helps to direct the view towards the hippo’s impressive facial expression and battle scars. --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, a good improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo misspells "hippopotamus", so the filename should be changed at the end of this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I requested a filename change. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "At the end of this nomination", Ikan asked clearly. Now we have different names on the file and the nomination. Congrats :/ --Kreuzschnabel 11:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Fixed. (I hope that I have found and updated all links.) --Aristeas (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment And no “thank you”, of course. People who are so greedy to criticize others should also be able to thank people who fix the problems. But no no no, criticizing is all some people here are able to. --Aristeas (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Striking out this again, sorry. (This is not the right place for such a discussion.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Pines, Pine Plains, NY 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2022 at 21:15:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info Lovely example of Victorian Stick Style architecture in New York's Hudson Valley. Created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are dust spots in the middle of the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed as well as some I found over on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Very good photo of a striking motif. I'm undecided so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm feeling like not, because it bugs me that the foliage impinges on the building on both sides. But I see no reason to rain on your parade by opposing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like the way it frames the building. These later Victorian styles were meant to be less at odds with a surrounding pastoral landscape; this demonstrates that. I was careful when taking it to make sure the foliage wasn't blocking the building per se. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Bruce1ee^talk 09:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very vivid. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States

File:20191213 Mężczyzna z zaprzęgiem wielbłądzim, Bikaner, 1431 8471.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 08:50:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Jakub Hałun - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see how this is exceptional. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice scene and light indeed but considerable motion blur in this shot. Might work better in a square crop. However, the wire fence on the right looks really awful, unfortunately. --Kreuz schnabel 10:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced this is an FP, but I certainly think it's a good composition and deservedly a QI, and I understand why it was nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buffalo in dirt in Yala National Park.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2022 at 11:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
Info created & uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that these are not wild animals. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose crowded composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lack of DoF --Wilfredor (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Wilfredor, but I like the image anyway. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Well, the small DoF is certainly intentional, and actually it gives the photo a nice impression of depth. The frontmost buffalo’s head is very sharp. The colours are beautiful. I am unsure about the left crop, of course. --Aristeas (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very crowded composition, but not in a way that really helps me move my eyes around the picture frame, and it also doesn't help that the water buffalo in front is partly cropped on the left. I'd support the photo at QIC, but I don't find it really great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure the DoF is intentional, but in case it is, I don't find this choice a success because the buffaloes behind are interesting too, though we can't distinguish the heads. The light is ordinary. A golden light would have been more pleasant -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Argenberg (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)

File:Château de Valère et Haut de Cry - juillet 2022.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 11:28:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Switzerland
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me (Christian David) -- Espandero (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Espandero (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the photo, however given the same view already featured this should be a "delist & replace" nomination. Also, please try to do something about the noise. Regards --A.Savin 11:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the two pictures do not have the same intention. I would rather keep the other one as FP than to do a "delist & replace". Thanks, Espandero (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support imo this pic is different enough (different time of the year). -- Ivar (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't think this needs to be a delist & replace but I do strongly suggest nominating the picture (or changing this nomination) as a set. The winter and summer views from the same angle definitely makes for a good set feature. And if you do nominate as a set then perhaps this image could use a bit of cropping. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with A. Savin - this should be a "delist & replace" nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally like this one more than the other one. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar, Espandero. Per the suggestion of a set: Can photos in a set be by different photographers? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Both pictures were taken by me. I'm not sure what the point of a set is; since the first photograph is already a FP does it really matter? - Espandero (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, probably not much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would weakly oppose a set, since the perspectives (crops) are a little too different. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is actually different enough that I think it can stand on its own merits. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Radomianin (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Switzerland

File:Kaardebol (Dipsacus). 09-07-2022 (actm.) 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 15:26:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Dipsacaceae
Info Flower bud of a Dipsacus (teasel). Focus stack of 26 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Agnes Monkelbaan, could you give us some sense of the size of this bud? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The button has a diameter of ~33 mm.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imperfections can easily be attributed to this being so small. This looks a flower that does not want yout to mess with it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good at 70% of full size and below, even on my 23.5-inch monitor, so in view of its size, especially, I think that's excellent. I'm going to be on the road for 17 days starting in 2 days, so don't worry if you don't see me active here, as I won't have my big monitor with me and will be pretty busy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you a good journey.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Dipsacaceae

Chama macerophylla var. sulphurea valves, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 06:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Right valve
Left valve

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Chamidae
Info In the genus Chama, the left valve is always attached to corals (as here), stones, shells or other hard substrate. The right valve is free. (In the genus Pseudochama it is reversed); created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support---GRDN711 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting bone-like spongy structure on the left valve. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set. Fascinating structures. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Chamidae

File:Mating pair of Taractrocera maevius (Fabricius, 1793) - Grey-veined Grass Dart WLB.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2022 at 14:31:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question A single image or a focus stack please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
single image Anitava Roy (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose very good compo and resolution, but detail level is not so good. The eyes are just dark spots without detail. -- Ivar (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me this very detailed and high resolution image is more than appropriate. What's not sharp in nature cannot be pictured sharper. --Stepro (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand Stepro's comment "What's not sharp in nature". Doesn't make any sense to me. The hairs of a butterfly can be photographed sharp; these have not been. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estrella canaria (Narcissia canariensis), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 48.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 21:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Asteroidea
Info Sea star (Narcissia canariensis), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. It can reach a diameter of up to 40 centimetres (16 in) and can be found in rocky or sandy sea beads from 5 to 100 m (16 to 330 ft). Narcissia canariensis can be found in the Canary Islands but also in Cape Verde, the Gulf of Mexico, Madeira, the Azores and Congo. It feeds on seaweed. Note: We have no FPs of genus Narcissia and in fact a few pictures of it. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely taken... --SHB2000 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image. --Tagooty (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good contrast with the background. -- Ivar (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good, except for the leftmost tentacle partially being covered up. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 15:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a nice sense of whimsy... --GRDN711 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a bit like Patrick . Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Asteroidea

File:SJN Di 4 Finneidfjord - Mo i Rana.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2022 at 21:26:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by David Gubler - uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent picture to nominate during a hot summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Refreshing.--Ermell (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Yann (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to poop the party once more but I really fail to see what’s so special here. The train, or what is visible of it, is mostly unsharp. --Kreuz schnabel 10:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a snowstorm. How would you get a sharper picture of it in a snowstorm? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn’t even try to take an FPC in a snowstorm at all :D --Kreuz schnabel 18:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But others do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And some others try to take FPCs with their phonecams at low light. They’re free to do so, and I am free to oppose whenever I think the quality does not suffice, or the composition is not that special. --Kreuz schnabel 11:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't deny your right to oppose, but would you automatically oppose a photo for not being tack sharp because it was shot in fog? I just think it's logical to consider that a bit of softness can be reasonable in a snowstorm. It's not like this photo is an indistinguishable blur. But sure, everyone has their limit and variety makes the world go round. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum skylight.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 22:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United States
Info created and uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a commons scene of "2001: A Space Odyssey" --Wilfredor (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Glass ceilings and skylights

File:Eiffel Tower in 2022 05.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2022 at 05:36:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by Maksim Sokolov - uploaded by Maksim Sokolov - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No great composition to me and uncorrected perspective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. I would consider this a featurable image only if the goal was to make Paris look uninteresting while still prominently featuring the Eiffel Tower in the image. Timestamp also seems off given the light. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellowstone National Park (WY, USA), Norris Geyser Basin -- 2022 -- 2689.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2022 at 05:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Wyoming
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 05:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 05:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really significant, blurry especially at bottom. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Urban. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It is sometimes difficult to convey the personal impression on site with a photograph. Here it probably does not fit rather. Thanks for your reviews. --XRay 💬 09:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celestine - Sakoany deposit, Katsepy, Mitsinjo, Boeny, Madagascar.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2022 at 10:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by – Ivar (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Might this look better with a white background? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imo dark background gives more contrast. -- Ivar (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, I see what you mean. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This pic rocks!! Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals

File:Kaohsiung Music Center and Lingyaliao Railroad Bridge lit with Ukrainian flag colors during 2022 Taiwan Lantern Festival (cropped).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2022 at 22:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Taiwan
Info created by Tiouraren - uploaded by Tiouraren - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral At the bottom there are some ghosts that could be eliminated, there is also a lot of light pollution (the black of the sky should be black and not gray) --Wilfredor (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Wilfredor. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Wilfredor, but I still like the image. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the people's ghosts at the bottom are due to one minute exposure. Considering the crop done on the image and removing most of the unnecessary elements, this is not a major problem for me. It's beautiful and the politically meaningful presentation of the Ukrainian flag on Taiwan soil makes this image more special than another FP we recently had of the same building. -- IamMM (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IamMM, though I might prefer the photo if some of the lighter ghosts were removed. I would understand if Tiouraren would consider that fakery, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IamMM. --Aristeas (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think it's great. MartinD (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Taiwan

File:Coral cerebro (Platygyra daedalea), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 70.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2022 at 18:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info lesser valley coral (Platygyra daedalea), Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt. This stony coral is present in various reef environments, particularly on back reef slopes, from subtidal rocks down to about 30 metres (100 ft). This brain coral is an aggressive coral and seeks to prevent competitors from overshadowing it. The polyps of P. daedalea expand at night to catch planktonic particles floating by. However, this coral obtains most of its nourishment from the dinoflagellates known as zooxanthellae it houses within its tissues. These provide organic carbon and nitrogen, the products of photosynthesis, to their host. To benefit from this symbiotic arrangement, P. daedalea needs to grow in shallow, sunlit environments. Note: we have no FPs of genus Platygyra. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support‌‌ -- IamMM (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa

File:Les Hauts Forts 04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2022 at 16:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question why have you chosen to have the foreground in shade? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp; The shade is on the left and on the right. The image is sunny in the center, including the motif. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The gently curved shady slopes in the foreground act as a frame for the luminous open landscape of the background. This picture makes me breathe a sigh of relief. --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problem with the shadows and would like to walk the path.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The sky is too pale to complement the lighting and I find the shade distracting. Great scene though. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting & shade doesn't bother me. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfectly catching the feeling of being in the mountains on a hot summer day. The shade to me is a fitting frame for the motif and the open landscape beyond it. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much of the foreground is in shade, but forcibly brought up to a palatable brightness. The ultimate result is not quite natural IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie

File:Рудник "Мир" спустя 5 лет после затопления, г. Мирный, Республика Саха (Якутия).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2022 at 22:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Russia
Info created by Yanaudanenko - uploaded by Yanaudanenko - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good scene, but insufficient sharpness IMO. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Urban. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed impressive, but the flares are too heavy. Yann (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Just looking at the sun hurts my eyes. No way can this go on the main page. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Dear SHB2000, I would like to understand this oppose better, especially because it is a strong one. Do you mean that every photo which contains the sun does hurt your eyes? Or do you refer to the lensflares below of the sun? --Aristeas (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really that exceptional an image. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would probably be FP if taken with a large-sensor camera such as a DSLR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Livraria Lello (49369268093).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2022 at 05:14:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Portugal
Info created by Sanshiro Kubota - uploaded by Tm - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IamMM: It's a nice motif but I believe that the quality is not quite there for FP (or QI), too much noise, wrong WB, perspective correction missing,... There are also too many heads around the scene for my taste Poco a poco (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. -- -donald- (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You are right Poco. Maybe later in my spare time I'll be able to fix the noise/perspective/WB problem to some extent and try it again on FPC, but I'm not in a position to do so at the moment. -- IamMM (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IamMM I can also give it a try if you like Poco a poco (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. thank you -- IamMM (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be great if you could try that, Poco. (I could have tried it, too, but in these weeks I am preparing for a move to another flat and therefore can’t do much image processing.) --Aristeas (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rathaus Diedesfeld IMG 0315.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2022 at 16:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A good picture, but too much shadowing under the arch structure IMO. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything special here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dunes of Reserva Biologica de Santa Isabel - Pirambu - Sergipe - Brasil - 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 04:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
Info created by Sandro Stéfano Sá Azevedo - uploaded by Sandro Stéfano Sá Azevedo - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great view, but I'd like to see some noise reduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, per Ikan Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Taking of Lungtungpen, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2022 at 23:55:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

First illustration to The Taking of Lungtungpen by Rudyard Kipling
Second illustration to The Taking of Lungtungpen by Rudyard Kipling

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Book_illustrations_in_black_and_white
Info created by Archibald Standish Hartrick - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No comment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have just read the summary of the story and it seems this narrative is brutal, chauvinistic, racist and glorifies war crimes, murder and acts of violence. Is it somehow to be understood as a hidden criticism of these crimes, or did Kipling (whom I have only known from the Jungle Book) really represent this terrible attitude? (I know that such attitudes were common in those days, but it is always sad to find out that this or that great writer, artist etc. also shared them, so I ask). --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression from Kipling is he's basically an advocate for the lower classes, advocating for the enlisted over the officers that ordered them around. He seems to try not to be racist, but doesn't always succeed given when he was writing. He clearly loved the culture and people of India, but he's also the author of The White Man's Burden. But, then again, The White Man's Burden is also a statement of goals, and explicitly states that colonialism's goals should be, first, to benefit the people under it, and, secondly, to eventually release them. Basically, he's arguably progressive for his day, but not tainted by it. That said, having read Puck of Pook's Hill, which has one of the most bizarre defenses of Jewish people you'll ever see. (It basically boils down to something like "Yes, they love money and control the world's finances. But that's a good thing! It's just a little quirk they have, and they always use it to benefit everyone. Aren't they great?") ...Well, I get the feeling he's a great writer, probably has a good heart, but he is not, when it comes down to it, a clever man, and that shows in some of the most bizarre "hot takes" (or whatever you want to call them) in literature. That said, I'm a white guy so take my impressions with a grain of salt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Just as an addendum: Kipling is actually a pretty eloquent spokesperson for conservatism, as a general proposition rather than a set of positions purported to reflect that general proposition, as demonstrated by "The Gods of the Copybook Headings", which I still find very relevant (Rereading it, I really wonder what Kipling would have thought of Brexit). Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Daniel, thank you very much for your responses and insights! Very interesting. Well, human beings are complex and often have contradictory ideas and attitudes (mostly without realizing that they are contradictory), and so I should not be surprised that this applies also to Kipling. --Aristeas (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restauration of historically interesting illustrations. --Aristeas (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Book_illustrations_in_black_and_white

File:Bambusicola thoracicus Wuhan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 14:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
Info created by Interaccoonale - uploaded by Interaccoonale - nominated by Interaccoonale -- --Interaccoonale (Talk) 14:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Interaccoonale (Talk) 14:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful bird, but for me the environment is too busy and the tail is not sharp enough.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Yann (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Famberhorst. -- Karelj (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breakfast in Île d'Orléans 072.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 15:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pleasant scene, but not an FP. The food and drink are not very prominent, the food is not sharply focussed. Falls well short of the meals in the gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see this more as a photo of the window with its intriguing inside/outside contrast than as a photo of a meal. I love the contrast between the well-ordered interior with its subdued light and the rich garden nature outside. Therefore it makes perfect sense that the focus is on the lamp and on the window. This photo reminds me much e.g. of this window FP. Therefore I would suggest to change the gallery link to Architectural elements#Windows. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gallery link changed as suggested. (Undo my edit if you disagree ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support A little busy to me, especially on the table. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose While Aristeas is spot on about how this works as a photo, the window muntins, glasses and plates are oversharpened. Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case I rollbacked any sharpening filter, please could you take another look?. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice object, but that was too much HDR, it needs more light from the window on the table. -- -donald- (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done -donald-, I lowered the HDR to give more light to the table, please, could you take another look?. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the table top did not change in light, the window and curtain only. -- -donald- (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this image - it feels a bit like a still life, a painting more than a photograph. The colors enhance this feeling. I do not see this as being too busy, the scene is well balanced. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Kritzolina. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- IamMM (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way this looks now, and I like the feeling it gives. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why did the size change from around 30 Mpixels to 55 Mpx and then back? Yann (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I artificially enlarge the image with Topaz Gigapixel but this created other problems like oversharpening commented by others. --Wilfredor (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so thank you from removing the enlargement again. --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was an experiment that went wrong, I always try to improve the photos but sometimes one ends up spoiling it. I consider myself more of a photographer than a photoshop editor, I like using stitched photos more than using the fake topaz Gigapixel trick but I wanted to try to see your comments and finally someone commented on what I more or less feared. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. IMO use of Topaz Gigapixel to enlarge images should be highly discouraged on Commons, and certainly not accepted on FP. Yann (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yann I think that you are right, also Topaz Denoise or any Denoise tool because it's destructive. FPC should accept the noise like we accepted the film grain. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Llez (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bravo, Wilfredor! Not perfect technically but still magic, as a painting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado meu caro. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Donald. -- Karelj (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Windows

File:Composition of the German Bundesrat as a pie chart.svg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2022 at 20:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others
Info created by Aeroid - uploaded by Aeroid - nominated by Aeroid -- Aeroid (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aeroid (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As I do not know the FP protocol for graphics. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question looks very nice at first sight, but gets really confusing once I try to wrap my head around it. What exactly does the area size encode? Is it really the number of seats per party? That doesn't seem to add up. For instance, afaict SPD in Saxony and Linke in Bremen each cannot have more than one seat (they are the weakest of three parties in their state and the states have only 4 and 3 grey rectangles aka seats respectively). So why is the area for SPD in Saxony larger than the area of Linke in Bremen? In other places, I can't even make out which area is larger: Grüne in Bremen or Linke in Berlin? Luckily this is based on an official figure so I don't feel bad about being blunt: Regular pie charts are already bad enough in that regard, but this is almost completely obscure to me. At the very least it needs a much better description. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC) PS @Aeroid Let me know if I'm somehow missing the point here. Also be aware that it's entirely fine to make adjustments to both the file and the description during the nomination as long as you notify people here. [reply]
- Turns out I indeed completely missed the point. Apparently, seats from one state are not divided between the parties in a coalition after all. The area representing a party within a state's slice of pie (or donut) is not equivalent to anything. It just depends on the number of seats available (angle) and number of parties in the coalition (number of subdivisions in a slice). This is just a ridiculously convoluted and unintuitive way of transmitting the same information as in File:Bundesrat Sitzverteilung.svg. A great example of design decisions getting in the way of delivering the message. Obviously not Aeroid's fault, who afaict did a great job with the manual SVG. Sorry, but I can only Oppose this for being unclear and potentially even misleading. --El Grafo (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not a standard election diagram. It illustrates a rather custom German constitutal body with its particular details of composition and voting procedures.
  
  But thanks for digging into it and trying to get your head around it. I also did the other diagram you mentioned, which I abandoned due to information of the actual current division of power was encoded on the physical seats. That didn't work on thumbs.
  
  Just to explain a little bit this choice here: a "slice" is a state, each state has defined number of seats by constitution. The seats are the outer circle grey boxes. This defines the "width" (angle) of the slice.
  
  A state is ruled by single parties (Saarland) or most commonly coalitions. There are typcially majority parties "leading" teh coalition and get their candidate elected to be the state's head of legislature (Ministerpresident). This majority party is one the outermost position in the slice, taking up most of the "area". the smallest coalition member is on the innermost postion of the slice. For me this is enough info and as much as you could encode. The election results leading to this coaltion are not really relevant after the coalition takes power and divides ministers among them as they decide. The seats here and voting procedure are by law bound together and a stae has to vote as one with all their seats. So I think it well represents this kind of political body. The offical charts on the Bundesrat.de website are very similar, so didn't really invent soemthing new.
  
  There is a second very similar diagram style the I maintain and can update within 2 minutes which is suitable for even smaller thumbnails.
  
  As mentioned really not much of an "design", I re-use color choices from the election diagrams on wikide and just put quite some work on easy translation and update capabilities of this.
  
  But thanks for your feedback, if more people don't get the content (which is complex, can't change german law), I'm happy to consider incorporating it in a further variant. Aeroid (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I actually got it right the second time - yay! After some consideration, I think my main problem with understanding the chart was that it looks very much like a stacked bar chart of one thing (probably proportions of 100%) merged with a half doughnut chart of another thing. Figuring out what the doughnut part means was relatively easy. But figuring out that the stacked bar chart is not a bar chart at all took a while. I'm not saying that bar length should encode more information, but it could, and at first sight it looks like it does. That's what I meant with misleading above. There's of course nothing wrong with doing it like this (after all, it's pretty much identical the one on the Bundesrat website), and being useful at thumb size is a valid concern (at least for Wikipedia, not so much over here). This edit already helps a lot!

Contents aside, I'd like to say that this indeed a high-quality figure with good proportions, line weights, etc. (the only thing I would personally change is the yellow, as it's visually close to white and the circle in the legend next to FDP is barely visible on my (cheap but calibrated) screen). So if you're not succeeding here, that's not because you didn't do a good job (wow, triple negative ...). It's just that FP at Commons aims for media that has at least a bit of a wow-effect, and that's really difficult to achieve with any kind of diagram. --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. It was a shot in the dark. If I knew that a "Visual Wow-factor" was the prime hurdle to take, I wouldn't have tried it. Would be great if this could be clarified on the entry page. While there are of course great illustrations that could qualfiy, I would question the "visual" focus. Especially as we are nowadays facing lower entry barriers for "good looking content" (which is good), but need not to forget, that pure visuals are not the sole quality-criteria (not even to start any DALL-E discussion here). But I understand that the "maintainability" is probably hard to fit into the "FP protocol". Aeroid (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the "wow" does not have to be visual at all. Can be "wow, this is educational", "wow, this is a rare sight" or basically anything else. Technically speaking, it's not even a rule, more of an observation of voting behavior: candidates that have a certain something about them that is somehow outstanding/special/impressive/better that "just good" tend to be the ones that are successful. But yeah, maybe we have reached a point where it has turned into an unwritten rule, that should be written down somewhere. El Grafo (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very simple image. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, I take that as a compliment. I didn't see a need for any fancyness. I hope you have also considered the SVG code for easy updating and the 17 translations. Aeroid (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see what separates this one from all the other semicircular distribution charts we have of seating and representation in legislative bodies around the world. And it is necessarily subject to change. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SVG maintainability for additional languages and frequent updates. In other words... all (but one) other diagrams on this are out of date. ;-) Aeroid (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and per Daniel. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dents de Morcles au coucher de soleil - juillet 2022.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2022 at 09:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Valais
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me (Christian David) -- Espandero (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Espandero (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty view but not exceptional to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reluctantly but agree with Ikan. Also find the shadow in front to be too dominant. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but a little too late to be FP. Please try again about half an hour ealier with more light. Yann (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Yann. This is just too low light. Looks a bit oversharpened. Why stop down to f/11? --Kreuz schnabel 11:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GRDN711, Yann and Kreuz: please note the main focus of this picture is the two summits in the middle, which are the Dents de Morcles. The shadow was left to balance the whole picture (so not to have too much sky and not enough land in the picture); there is no real interresting detail that is hidden in the shadow. Thanks, Espandero (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picos de Europa - Soto de Sajambre - @vilanchelo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2022 at 10:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Vilanchelo - uploaded by Vilanchelo - nominated by Vilanchelo -- Vilanchelo (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vilanchelo (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Dim light, vignetting, unnatural contrast and overall look. And really not that interesting an image beyond those. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC) (Escalating !vote to strong oppose per Kreuzschnabel; I had wanted to do that originally but felt a little sheepish about doing that when mine was the first !vote. Now I see I was right. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Strong oppose Funny idea admittedly, but the image is overexposed, poor quality, uninteresting light, odd-looking vignetting with a decrease in contrast towards the edges, and not the most fortunate composition. Not even QI for me. I cannot see why this should be one of our very very very best pics, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 21:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias por comentar. Es cierto que la composición no es buena, pero no estoy de acuerdo con respecto a la luz, el viñeteado, que me parece equivocado como he visto en otro comentario tildarlo de "viejo". En cualquier caso, lo tendré en cuenta para las siguientes fotos :) Vilanchelo (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I'm sorry, but about 10% of Commons' pics are way better in both quality and remarkability, and where is the wow? --SHB2000 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scarlet Robin - Mortimer Bay.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2022 at 13:21:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Petroicidae_(Australasian_Robins)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 13:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool bird, especially the contrast between the orange and the white feathers. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Petroicidae_(Australasian_Robins)

File:Édifice Price at night, Quebec city, Canada.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2022 at 15:30:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The branch in the bottom left bothers me a little bit, but otherwise OK. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada

File:Elvis Presley 1958.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2022 at 04:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info Portrait of Elvis Presley; Uncredited - uploaded by CarterLennon - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lošmi (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just in time for the 45th anniversary of his death. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. It's finally time to feature the King on Commons. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming smile. --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I just don't like the crop. No headspace. I'd like to know a bit more sourcing as well, as opposed to just "no idea". Through a search for "Elvis 1958" I found [1], which identifies this as a production photo from "King Creole" and which also lacks the terrible crop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some concerns: Given that it being a promotional still from King Creole was apparently not yet figured out when this was nominated, how on earth was a check for non-renewal of copyright done? Did whoever did it checkthe magazine it was published in? That might be enough, but we don't say anywhere what was done, and that's rather important info for the license. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the research, Adam! I closely compared these two – the one from the magazine (published in June 1958) and this one. From what I can tell, although they look almost exactly the same, there are subtle differences. (for example, Elvis' mouth is slightly more open in the magazine one) They were probably taken just a second apart, but I think that they are not 100% the same image. Should we delete this one until we find a different source? Lošmi (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without some form of documentation, it may be best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Thanks. Lošmi (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Unfortunately, it seems that the licensing is not clear enough. Lošmi (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lac de Montriond 57.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2022 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image, which shows the same theme, is already FP, but this one is captured in a different season of the year. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose a bit too dark, unfortunately. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lightening the shadows shouldn't be too hard. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Daniel. 75.148.168.61 23:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image:Torre en Colonia Müller.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2022 at 02:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Argentina
Info created by Fernandocba08 - uploaded by Fernandocba08 - nominated by Fernandocba08 -- Fernandocba08 (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fernandocba08 (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Poor quality, posterization, poor composition (bad crop), color distortion, and watermark. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Eiffel Tower in 2022 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2022 at 08:32:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by Maksim Sokolov - uploaded by Maksim Sokolov - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This I like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure how this is so remarkable. When I was in Paris almost a decade ago, it was pretty easy to get a shot like this so no wow. Also, given that this was taken at night, do we have a FoP issue? (see [2]) --SHB2000 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The rule of a FP having to be hard to take seems to have been just recently introduced, so I haven’t heard of it yet. Category:Eiffel Tower from immediately beside it has 2 or 3 images from the same spot, and one of them nearly coincident, but at much lower quality in less interesting light … well yes, that’s more a point for VI, but this kind of photo does not seem to be that commonplace then. This one candidate is interesting and impressive for me, a bit soft but we’re talking about 60 megapixels. Still, there’s the FoP issue to clear. --Kreuz schnabel 12:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think there's a rule, but if it's so easy to take then there's no wow. SHB2000 (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SHB2000. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting perspective which makes us see the famous tower in a not-so-common way and emphasizes its structure. I don’t think we should speculate about how difficult a photo is to take – some of our best FPs may be technically simple shots, and on the other hand there can be incredibly complex photos which nevertheless would never make it to a FP for good reasons. However there is still the copyright problem because of the strange French copyright conception. Personally I think this should be fixed in France (i.e., France should finally introduce a working freedom of panorama), but until that I fear we cannot keep such photos … I support this photo here (a) for moral reasons and (b) because I have been told that we should discuss such legal issues in deletion requests etc., not here. --Aristeas (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding is that the copyright claim is over the light shows (or if you prefer, special lighting), not the regular yellow light we see here, which couldn't possibly pass any threshold of originality. I believe the light show takes place later at night, not during blue hour. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, Ikan. That would make sense. I hope this is the correct explanation and we can keep this photo (and similar photos). --Aristeas (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there is no daily light show. It only happens on special occasions. Yann (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Given what Category:Eiffel Tower at night says, I do not believe we are in the clear here. It has always been my understanding that the lighting design on the tower was commissioned not just for the light show but for any occasion it's all lit up ... watch the credits of any American movie that includes a scene with the Eiffel Tower at night, and you'll see the copyright acknowledged. I didn't find anything in threshold of originality that discusses how France treats it; in a nation lacking FoP I do not think we can make any assumptions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good details and lights. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best way to show off the tower. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SHB2000. -- Karelj (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-35 Heritage Flight Team performs in Bell Fort Worth Alliance AirShow.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2022 at 20:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created by Airman 1st Class Alexander Cook - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 20:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 20:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning --Ermell (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support you don’t see something like that very often, amazing technology, not easy to photograph planes and birds in motion — Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! What speed was this plane at? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft

File:Fragaria vesca fruit - Keila.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2022 at 14:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May it be that the magnification somewhat has gone too far here? --A.Savin 13:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the question. Shot is done without additional magnification with standard macro lens. Fruit size was ca 8–10 mm. -- Ivar (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable DoF for a single image! --Tagooty (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and yet, this is stacked, not a single image. -- Ivar (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae

File:Symphorichthys spilurus - Wilhelma 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2022 at 05:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Lutjanidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent underwater image. --Tagooty (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Fernandocba08 Decime lo que quieras!! 02:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Only Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was this photo taken in nature or in an aquarium?. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info As both the filename and the category say and as you can read in the description: Wilhelma --Llez (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --De728631 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family : Lutjanidae

File:Yosemite National Park (CA, USA), Yosemite Valley, Mirror Lake -- 2022 -- 2815.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2022 at 05:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 05:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 05:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure how remarkable this is (other photos I've seen of Mirror Lake have been more spectacular), but supporting because of the excellent quality. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per SHB2000. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yosemite is a beautiful place in general, but I don't see what makes this particular photo remarkable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hm … Well, maybe the point is that this photo shows Mirror Lake but that there is no lake? Because of the drought? --Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the bank of the lake, typical with low water in the summer. --XRay 💬 19:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per King. It seems also a little oversaturated ... kind of like a postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking for a while at this photo it has grown for me. I like the contrast between the vivid colours of the plants and of the sky and the pale ground and rocks, which corresponds to the fact that here living nature asserts itself in a rather hostile mountain world. --Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the sky natural XRay? The transitions between sky and trees seem strange. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Additional there an additional noise reduction in the sky. May be this cause the (nearly not visible) transitions. (I can't see the transitions.) --XRay 💬 15:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ascaris male 200x section.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2022 at 14:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms
Info created and uploaded by Massimo brizzi - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and has a freaky "face" shape, so FP for me. If I had my wish, this would be a full cross section with a full circle of membrane and would be sharper at full size, but what we got is still special and not something you see every day! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Looks like an interesting buffet, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A good picture, shure, but 2 points: First, why this random clipping? If the specimen is not completely in the microscope's field of view, it's easy to take several single exposures and then stitch them together as a panorama (I do this with small mollusc shells, for example). And why is the dorsal side not at the top but diagonally to the right, that is, why is the preparation rotated 45°? Second, it would be interesting to know what the picture shows. An explanation of the individual structures would be easy to do with annotations. This image of a transverse section of a mature male could serve as a template. --Llez (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting coincidental structure :) -- Radomianin (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'd really like it to be complete and labelled, but I can see value in a light-hearted image that may make people a bit more curious about biology. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Precisely per El Grafo but I find this crop a dealbreaker like Benh would say Poco a poco (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still support the picture despite the crop, many people would find it interesting -- Awesomecat713 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Other lifeforms

File:Lac des Plagnes 07.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2022 at 09:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful spot, but I'm also biased because I like to dip my feet in spots like these. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much foreground. For me, landscape would work better. The crop at the right isn't right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie

File:Tartu asv2022-04 img60 StPeter Church.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2022 at 10:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Estonia
Info Interior view of St. Peter's Church in Tartu, all by me --A.Savin 10:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A noise reduction filter was applied excessively, eliminating details (for example, the textures on walls and lamps) and later an excessive sharpening filter was applied, which caused noise especially in the ceiling and in some areas of the wall. I have added some notes --Wilfredor (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Time to put Estonia on my travel wishlist. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -– George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Wilfredo; the NR seems to have made the stained glass windows at the rear look drawn in. We have a bar for church interiors, and it's been set higher than this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredo, could there maybe be a less sharpened version? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support In general I agree with Wilfredo that we should accept more (natural) noise in photos and stop with the habit of excessive noise reduction and oversharpening. But when compared with other photos this photo IMHO shows neither excessive noise reduction nor excessive sharpening. (Of course I would welcome less noise reduction.) --Aristeas (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown windows and per Daniel Case. --Ermell (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weird Tales August 1926.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2022 at 08:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Weird Tales - uploaded by User:AdamBMorgan - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antieke zwadhark, (long exposure photography) 07-08-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2022 at 14:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info Antique hay rake. (long exposure photography)
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good intentions, but the image does not work for me (and therefore has no wow). Firstly, the machinery is just old but by no means "antique", I’ve seen it still in use. Then, the main subject (according to the file name) is really hardly discernible here, the bottom half being covered in grass and the top part nearly vanishing before the busy shrubbery background (could have easily been avoided by holding the camera a bit higher to place the rake entirely before the bright grass). Third, the device is poor in detail for high levels of visible noise. Fourth, what’s the point of doing a long exposure here in bright light? --Kreuz schnabel 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the brighter look that the long exposure creates actually makes the image more about its late summer mood ... where I live we have just gotten out of our second heat wave of the summer, and with minimal rain over the last month (even given that it is usually our driest month), a lot of exposed unshaded grassy areas are far more golden than green. So this image is what this summer has felt like for me ... bright and sunny, almost to a fault. Which enhances the feeling of this equipment being put out to pasture (literally ) and neglected ... I don't really see it as the subject, just a part of the overall image's real subject. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly I don’t understand the need for a long exposure here, but Daniel is right about the summer mood captured nicely in this photo. And the rusty equipment is like an allegory: this summer is so long that rural equipment rusts and is overgrown by the meadow ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Daniel. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't understand why you would choose to have the trees and grass blurred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: for the overall atmosphere of the whole. A matter of taste.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. This image is well thought out and well crafted (would support for QI or VI) but does not have the wow that IMHO is needed for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Machines

File:Porsche 804 Solitude Revival 2022 1X7A0078.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2022 at 14:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Alexander-93 - uploaded by Alexander-93 - nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow-factor to me. Burnt out reflection in the front is a major flaw. --Tagooty (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Fernandocba08 Decime lo que quieras!! 02:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Only Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tagooty. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is also way too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~, but I disagree with Daniel, the background is what adds to the exciting aspect of the image IMO. 75.148.168.61 23:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must log in in order to vote. Yann (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwalbenschwanz-Duell Winterthur Schweiz.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2022 at 12:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
Info created by Hgut1842 - uploaded by Hgut1842 - nominated by De728631 -- De728631 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- De728631 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head of the right-hand butterfly is the only part in focus. Would struggle at QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- With a volatile subject such as two live butterflies, I would say that focus is not so much important as the overall composition of the snapshot. Obviously you cannot pin the two butterflies to one spot each in order to have a broader focus in a staged photo. So to get the impression of two "duelling" butterflies, I think the lack of overall focus is even beneficial as it illustrates the dynamic situation in this encounter. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. — 75.148.168.61 23:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck invalid vote. IPs can't vote per the guidelines at the top of this page. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower in 2022 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2022 at 04:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by Maksim Sokolov - uploaded by Maksim Sokolov - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting perspective. (Sidenote @Maksim: incredible depth of field for f/2.8. I admire the excellent use you make of open apertures – I would have just used f/8, but you show that f/2.8 can be perfect given that the lens is good.) --Aristeas (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I write this on my 10,000th edit. I like how it's near-symmetrical. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of the bottom of the tower is cropped away. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best way to show off the tower. There are much more better images of this object -- Karelj (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers#France

File:Ontluikende bloemknoppen van een Agapanthus 'Windlebrook'. 08-07-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2022 at 10:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Flower buds of an Agapanthus 'Windlebrook'. Focus stack of 18 photos. Created and uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination of my photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Sorry, Charles (see below) is right. --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support – postprocessing (sharpening) has gone too far. -- Ivar (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is this weird pixillation on the left edge of the flower near the top (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wonder if support voters have looked closely? Please have a closer look. This image has poor basic technical quality, probably from limitations of the camera, but the stack is also poorly executed. It is made to look worse because it does not come close to the red fruit nomination above. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several fuzzy areas. Stem is out of focus. This focus-stacked image is inferior to the single image of a red fruit above. --Tagooty (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above: has some quality issues. --El Grafo (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peces fuego diablo (Pterois miles), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 45.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2022 at 08:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Scorpaenidae_(Scorpionfish)
Info Common lionfishes (Pterois miles) resting on a coral (Dipsastraea favus), Red Sea, Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt. The common lionfish grows up to 35 cm (14 in) in length and is mainly nocturnal and hides in crevices during the daytime. It feeds on fish and small crustaceans and it has few predators, probably because of its venomous spines, but larger lionfish do prey on smaller ones. Its dorsal fin has 13 long strong spines that are highly venomous and have caused death to humans in some reported cases. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A good picture, but overexposed or close to it in some areas. Photo looks better now. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the background is not very good. Is that pair of sunglasses on the coral? --Ivar (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ivar, that's tiny, those are holes in the coral. As states above the fish is aprox. 30 cm long. Poco a poco (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Urban. And just ... it's hard to tell the fish from the coral at first glance. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the fish blends into the background. Exposure could be reduced a little. --Tagooty (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Urban Versis 32, Daniel Case, and SHB2000: I'm aware that this nom is through but still I retouched the curves and reduced the highlights. There is nothing I can do about the camouflage, it belongs to nature Poco a poco (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erizo de mar violáceo (Sphaerechinus granularis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 49.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2022 at 18:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Echinoidea
Info Violet sea urchin (Sphaerechinus granularis), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quite tight crop. Could you add more space on the sides like here or here (and represent it as alternative)? -- Ivar (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop doesn't bother me. — 75.148.168.61 23:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck invalid vote. IPs cannot vote per the guidelines at the top of this page --SHB2000 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me as it is --Isiwal (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop is a bit tight, but it's not too big of an issue. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ per my comment. -- Ivar (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per SHB2000 --Llez (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Daniel Case, Isiwal, SHB2000, Iifar, Llez, and MZaplotnik: FYI I've enlarged the crop a little around the sea urchin with the hope Iifar is happy and the others still approve it. Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Llez (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double thanks to you Llez but I'm afraid this vote is one is too much :) Poco a poco (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. --Llez (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Echinoidea

File:Múlafossur2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2022 at 21:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Faroe_Islands
Info created by HylgeriaK - uploaded by HylgeriaK - nominated by HylgeriaK -- HylgeriaK (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HylgeriaK (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would love to see a bit more of the sky on top, but still an impressive image of nature as I love it. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little tightly cropped per Kritzolina, but amazing otherwise! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ooh one from the Faroes! Would love to see a bit more sky on the top but I don't consider that as crucial. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Múlafossur is one of the most painterly scenes on the Faroes. --Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape.--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Ridgeline is maybe sharpened a bit too much. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropped too tight top and left for me. And the sky is too dull. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While we both agree that the top crop ist not ideal, I am confused about your description of the sky as "too dull". I find the cloudscape interesting and would love to see more of it, as mentioned. What would consider "not dull sky"? --Kritzolina (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have taken a look at two illustrated books about the Faroer. From the photos there I get the impression that this is a very “typical” Faroer weather and therefore (at least) appropriate for a Faroer FP ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the cloudscape is dull not interesting. It's a matter of taste which is often the case at FP. I usually prefer some blue sky. I am surprised that people are voting support yet acknowledging the weaknesses of this image. There is no reason to present an image that is so tightly cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image wasn't taken with that crop on purpose. I couldn't go further back there to fit in more + my wife opposed me buying a full-frame camera, so I'm stuck in APS-C crop factor hell unfortunately :-) --HylgeriaK (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP to me in spite of shortcomings like crop and detail Poco a poco (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Awesomecat713 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Faroe_Islands

File:Onça-pintada na Estação Ecológica de Taiamã por Queucer (01).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2022 at 00:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info created by Queucer - uploaded by Queucer - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting action but the level of noise of the background is very visible and should be reduced in my view. A description in English would be welcome, also -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting scene, but the background is too noisy for an FP. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise level is overwhelming, sorry. -- Ivar (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very regretful oppose due to noise. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor sharpening. I bet 5DS and ISO800, with a -2/3 exposure compensation shouldn't give this grainy an image at 24mpix (or it is a camera to run away from) - Benh (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Nobody is requesting "studio level noise" here. What we are requesting is 5DS at ISO800 level noise that could be achieved quite easily by going back to Photoshop and pulling down the sharpening. Again: would support this in a heartbeat with a bit more reasonable editing. --El Grafo (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose exactly as El Grafo. I would be happy to vote for this photo once the processing has been fixed. Thanks to El Grafo and others for their persistent attempts to explain what’s wrong! --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And nothing happens … @Queucer: We want to help you; we would be happy to feature your photo once the processing of the raw image file has been improved. I am sure several of our experienced photographers will even do it for you if you give them the raw image file (i.e. the CRW or CR2 file in the case of your camera); for example, I offer you to try it, just contact me. Or ask e.g. Poco a poco who uses a similar camera and has much experience in optimizing high-ISO shots taken with a Canon 5DS(R). All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will order Charles Topaz Denoising AI SW and can give it a try, otherwise I'll use Adobe Lr/Ph, but sure, I will try to help here Poco a poco (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
at ISO 800 I don't think Topaz will even be necessary (to get my vote anyways). A proper "mask" setting shall greatly improve the sharpening output. Maybe combine that with some slight NR too. Of course, no one will say no if you have it and can make it even better... ;) - Benh (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Comment Sad to see a photo made registering a quick scene after sunset in the middle of amazon forest, and volunteers requesting a noise level of studio. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 23:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that noise? It's way above anything we've ever promoted. People here have done better in worse situations. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People here do not live in a third-world country, where a camera is a luxury.

And photos are not only technical quality.

"People here have done better in worse situations."

Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)

I am looking at all the jaguars that we have in FP, one is steady steel, and by your criteria would never pass.

Two are in bright sunlight. Made by a gringo, not a Brazilian, or other South American.

And the rest is in a zoo.

So "People here have done better in worse situations."

Probably from a boat, after sunset, in a rainforest (that you may not know, but is hell dark), a fight scene, with a 7 years old camera that cost today 21k BRL (the same price of high-end Canon R5 in the USA) one year salary of an engineer in the country. So who did better?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 04:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A gringo? Get out of here until you learn some manners Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. What makes you think that only Brazilians, or other South Americans, should photograph Brazil's wildlife? Pathetic. Sad. Insulting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are a gringo, you do not speak Portuguese to say that is a insult, pathetic is assuming that is an insult without know the language. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 10:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it is absurd to have a country illustrated mainly by outsiders; History shows how atrocious this is. And having here a colonial/imperialist posture by a politic that privileges photos of people that are not local are completely abysmal.

And Charlesjsharp you showing all this drama for calling you gringo, is a perfect example that you do not understand the local culture, that you have a view of gringo [3]. We do not photograph with our camera we photograph with our culture. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 10:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp & Rodrigo.Argenton suggets you both read the introduction of en:Gringo and realize that it has different meanings in different regions. Relax & cut each other some slack please. El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Grafo I was not the one that started the dramatic theatre by a lack of knowledge.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 11:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were. You were writing in English, using a term that is often considered derogatory in that language. Maybe you did not know about that. That's OK. I gave you a way out of there. Could have just said "whoops, sorry, I didn't know, I didn't mean it that way". Calm down, go for a walk, and come back when you're done being angry. --El Grafo (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point here, I am not angry.

I am not the one saying "Pathetic. Sad. Insulting" or "And you need to study your geography and your photography", or "try to do so without an insult". -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 12:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand English usage before insulting non-Brazilians. If you really did not intend gringo to be derogatory, then a simple apology would have worked. And you need to study your geography and your photography. This photo was not taken anywhere near the Amazon rainforest or indeed any rainforest. You should not mislead FP voters. It is unlikely to be a 'fight scene'. The Reserve states that the jaguars are social and play-fighting is a social activity for all big cats. The Pantanal is not 'hell dark', although my 3 FPs of Jaguars were not taken in bright sunlight. You could have worked that out by looking at the ISO I used: 800/1600/3200 and the lack of any shadows. It seems that this image was taken either with flash or a bright light - neither are recommended for mammal photography. I agree El Grafo that I did over-react, apologies to everyone else. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I need to learn English, I need to be polite to a foreigner, and you don't need even to learn any other language. You can keep insulting me, but every time that you write you reinforce my point. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 11:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point actually? "This image has to be featured despite its quality drawbacks because it's from Brazil"? You can't be serious with that. --2A02:908:1980:73E0:1AD3:F1E0:EC1C:698E 11:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Log on, and read again. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 11:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and still what I put in quotes above is the only substantial point I can draw from your contributions in this nomination. So please correct me if I'm wrong (try to do so without an insult). --2A02:908:1980:73E0:1AD3:F1E0:EC1C:698E 12:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"try to do so without an insult" I will refuse to answer, first log on, second, change your accusatory posture. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 12:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with this particular image is that it looks much noisier than on would expect from a photo taken with this particular camera under these conditions (5DS @ ISO 800). I'd be willing to bet that this is largely due to processing. It's easy to accidentally emphasize noise when you're not careful with your sharpening, and the noise in this picture looks like exactly that has happened. There are no do-overs in an action shot like this, but there are do-overs in processing. Should be easy for @Queucer to go back to Photoshop and fix the problem. I'd support in a heartbeat. El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The strong grainy effect is clearly sharpened noise without any doubt, so it happened in processing and should be fixable as long as the original file has not been deleted. I'd suggest to withdraw this nomination here and have the image reworked by the author. - Generally, it's pointless to argue about votings here. In nominating an FPC, you're asking for other's opinions on this particular image, and with their votes, you're getting opinions. You don't have to "fight for your nomination" here (and won't make them change their vote by that). --2A02:908:1980:73E0:237D:BFE0:1BCA:AED3 09:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just exposing a general problem that having happening and have a great effect in "what is good". We have tons of European and North American photos, or made but those illustrating another country. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 11:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong about this in general, there certainly is a strong geographical/cultural/... bias here. But this is really not a great example to go on a rant and make this point. The problem here clearly lies in the post processing rather than quality of the camera or the financial situation of the photographer. The 5DS may be a couple of years old, but it is still an excellent piece of equipment. El Grafo (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree even on that :( 1,2, Canon 5DS and 5DSR are good in a controlled environment but look how noisy the images are, the first one the background was cleaned, but the subject not, the second the is in ISO 400, and in sunlight, the background is not clear.

Yes, the photographer chooses to not diminish the sharpness of the photo, and increase the dark areas without controlling the noise, and this is not a good camera for that.

But under these circumstances, for me, still acceptable, and more usable with greater sharpness and with some noise. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 12:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not care about other circumstances. If it's exceptionally good, then it's promoted, if it's not, then it doesn't. Period. SHB2000 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice elitist speech. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 10:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're right nevertheless. Images are judged here by their excellence only, regardless of where they come from or what equipment has been used to produce them, so there's no discrimination. And you've been said repeatedly now that the issue here comes from processing, not from the camera, so your "can't afford a better one" lamento is pointless, as nobody ever demanded that. --2A02:908:1980:73E0:1AD3:F1E0:EC1C:698E 11:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be honest, I don't understand this discussion at all, the noise level is high, it could have been reduced and the image would have been FP to me. Instead arguing about gringos, pictures taken by foreigners or locals and so on. Somebody here, Rodrigo.Argenton, hasn't got the point. We are here to select the best images and, if possible, improve them together. Assuming all comments are personal attacks (or attacks to your country or people) is just wrong and will not help you here or in future noms. Poco a poco (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't understand this discussion at all"

I noticed. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমান এর সমাধিসৌধ.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2022 at 19:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Mausoleum of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. created by Pinu Rahman - uploaded by Pinu Rahman - nominated by Mehediabedin -- Mehediabedin (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mehediabedin (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ A very good drone aerial picture. 50.246.52.1 23:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Anonymous account with IP are not allowed to vote, according to the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A good quality picture technically and deservedly a QI, but ... just looks like a drone photo of a circular building in the middle of the jungle to me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even for a drone photo, the left side in particular is very blurry --Isiwal (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this is remarkable in any way or form. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awesomecat713 (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, nothing special. Sea Cow (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wallis Assomption danse.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2022 at 22:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Vogensto - uploaded by Vogensto - nominated by Skimel -- Skimel (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Skimel (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see how this is exceptionally remarkable nor does it seem FP-worthy to me. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SHB Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SHB. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carex flava - Niitvälja.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 07:25:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Familia_:_Cyperaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again a beautiful one. --Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Familia_:_Cyperaceae

File:Echinacea purpurea L. Moench, Bravado. Jardin universitaire Roger-Van den Hende 48.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 17:11:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Apidae_(Bumble_Bees,_Honey_Bees,_Carpenter_Bees,_Cuckoo_Bees,_Orchid_Bees,_and_Stingless_Bees)
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flower petals from another flower on the left are a bit distracting and the bee's head is not so sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lac de Tavaneuse 28.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 19:09:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The shadows detract from the image a little bit, but otherwise good. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose Didn't we have one of this same view a while back, just late in the day with a lot of shadow where there is light in this image? That shadow, IIRC, was the dealbreaker for some of us.
Unfortunately, in this one, I feel like I'm being Goldilocks here but ... despite its technical excellence, the light is just ... too ... harsh. It's overhead and out of the frame ... but still. I squint a bit looking at this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:MTAB IORE 130+114 Søsterbekk - Norddalen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 07:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that you can tell it's an Arctic autumn by it being only five days past the equinox but there isn't a single green leaf left ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The way the train "weaves" between some of the foliage is very neat. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a long train -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Panorama vom Jenner.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 10:22:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Panoramic view (360°) from the Jenner in the Berchtesgaden Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would it be possible to name significant peaks, lake and direction North? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added some names of peaks, lake and direction North and South. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, makes all the difference. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful panorama, thanks :) --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It's a pity that the labels still can't be viewed in the original resolution. I've linked a calculated view under "other versions" that provides plenty of labels. Many thanks to User:Tournasol7 for adding all the anotations. --Milseburg (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ratekreel (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid. --Aristeas (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria

File:Paraulacizes irrorata 222119554.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 18:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Zygy - uploaded by Nosferattus - nominated by Nosferattus -- Nosferattus (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nosferattus (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. Legs are blurry and leaf is generally out of focus. Image is also very low-quality. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Urban Versis 32: This insect is the size of a grain of rice. Extreme magnification requires a shallow depth of field (See diffraction-limited system). It is completely unreasonable to require that the background leaf also be in focus as it isn't even the subject of the photo. And what do you mean "image is also very low-quality"? What quality are you talking about? color? contrast? sharpness? composition? aesthetics? resolution? noisiness? Nosferattus (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Nosferattus Sorry, I forgot to clarify quality. In this case, I referred to "quality" as resolution. (See Ivar's comment). Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Urban. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't see problem with the quality, but the resolution is very low. -- Ivar (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iifar: The image is within the 2 megapixel resolution guidelines for Featured Pictures. Note that macro photography requires a trade-off between depth of field and resolution. If I took the image at a higher resolution (i.e. higher magnification), less of it would be in focus. Since Urban Versis 32 rejected it based on the depth of field and you rejected it based on the resolution, it seems that it is impossible to get a photograph of this insect to be a featured picture without violating the laws of physics. See diffraction-limited system. Nosferattus (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I may be completely wrong about this, so I'd like someone else to verify my statement, but I have seen other photos of this species (Category:Paraulacizes_irrorata), specifically File:Paraulacizes_irrorata,_face,_Upper_marlboro,_md_2013-10-18-12.24.13_ZS_PMax_(10372994044).jpg, which is a photo of this species' face, at a resolution of 4200x3324. See also File:Paraulacizes_irrorata_P1660058a.jpg Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Urban Versis 32: Yes, and in both of those photos only the top of the insect is in focus. It's not hard to get a high resolution macro photo, but there is always a trade-off between resolution/sharpness and depth of field. As you raise the f-stop you gain depth of field at the cost of overall sharpness, and the higher the magnification, the steeper the trade-off. It doesn't matter if you have a $10,000 macro lens and a studio set-up, diffraction softening still has the same effect. This photo could be higher resolution/sharper, but then less of the insect would be in focus. You have to choose one, though, you can't have both. Take a look at these featured ant photos, for example: File:Plectroctena sp ants.jpg, File:Red Weaver Ant, Oecophylla smaragdina.jpg, File:Formica high res.jpg, File:Myrmecia forficata.jpg. In all of them, the legs are out of focus, and most of them are barely over 2 megapixel. It's not because they are poor photos taken with old cameras, it's because they are at the limit of what is possible regardless of technology. Nosferattus (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nosferattus: 2 MP was ok resolution for macro images 10–20 years ago (yes, the guidelines are very old). Last years we had many excellent focus stacked insect FP candidates with higher resolution (even over 40 MP). 2 MP image has to be very special to get promoted today. -- Ivar (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iifar: It is not always possible to get a focus stack of a live insect. Try getting a focus stack of a live ant for example. Are those subjects just not eligible for featured picture? And if the featured picture guidelines aren't true, they need to be updated. You shouldn't be wasting people's time with false guidelines. Nosferattus (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Nosferattus @Iifar Actually, I honestly think that you both make a pretty good point about guidelines -- I'll look into it and see if someone may be willing to update the guidelines, or maybe a consensus, etc. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatian pelican in flight, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 12:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

wing upperside
wing underside

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Pelecanus
Info 3 current FPs, none in flight. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ratekreel (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Skimel (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Approximately what speed and altitude might this bird have been at? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late afternoon light, passed us about 20m off the water at about 30 km/hour. I was 3m above the water in a boat, increasing the relative speed to 40 km/hr. I took about 15 shots. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The light is very appealing, but the wings slightly blurry. Also the sharpness is average. It looks like the DoF is too generous, compared to the speed, a bit slow. Overall support because shooting a bird in flight is never easy -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sharpness is good, but I agree about shutter speed and aperture. When a bird suddenly appears, you don't always have time to get everything right. Charlesjsharp (talk)

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

` Support The dark halos on the wing feathers in the first image deserved a little more work but otherwise very good..--Ermell (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support But per Ermell halo's first photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded. Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question A very impressive set, but in the right photo the individual feathers of the wing seem to fuse or melt into another and lack definition. Is this due to motion blur, due to noise reduction or due to something else? --Aristeas (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's 80% motion blur. Not much detail has gone in the noise reduction. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for the answer! (I did hesitate for some days to vote on this set because that “fusion” of feathers looks so artificical to me, but I believe you that it is mostly just motion blur.) --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Pelecanus

File:Edward Duncan - The Explosion of the United States Steam Frigate Missouri.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 21:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1800-1850
Info Thomas Goldsworthy Dutton's lithograph of Edward Duncan's artwork based on George Pechell Mends' sketch. Restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and carefully executed lithograph of a historical scene, scanned in high resolution and restored in an excellent manner. --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great restoration per Aristeas. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1800-1850

File:Leuchtfeuer Geestemole Nord - Bremerhaven 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2022 at 05:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info I took this photo about 7 weeks ago. And yesterday happened this... So this photo will be the last on Commons which shows this cultural monument in its original state! Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even without considering the event I like the simple clean form of the tower and the minimalist beauty of the photo you have created from it. --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might be one of our most recent, if not the most recent, photo we have on Commons before the tower tipped. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In recognition of the photo's sudden historical importance, I am not opposing on this basis, but ... something has to be done about that colored halo around the lighthouse. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look colored to me, but agreed: that halo needs to be addressed. ~~temporary oppose~~ until that's done. --El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Halos removed --Llez (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and oppose removed. Much better now, thanks & Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany

File:Curculio nucum-20220808-RM-090446.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2022 at 21:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Curculionidae_(Snout_Beetles)
Info Nut weevil (Curculio nucum) on a hazelnut. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 00:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lošmi (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now, this is cool Poco a poco (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is a bit strange, like artificial, but the animal awesome -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I really like the whole setting. Very dramatic result. - Benh (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco and Benh. And the quality is excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Curculionidae_(Snout_Beetles)

File:Poplar lappet (Gastropacha populifolia) Danube delta 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2022 at 17:49:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lasiocampidae (Eggars, lappets)
Info No FPs of this genus. Focus stack of 15 images. This image shows the same moth from the side. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettable Oppose Lower part of two legs out of focus. Between both eyes out of focus and a dark halo around the upper part of the head. (stacking errors?)--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

legs and 'nose' still out of focus, but stacking errors corrected. Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. To me this photo is still not an FP due to the dominant out of focus nose and out of focus legs.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool. What size is the average Lasiocampidae like the one in this photo? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body about 35-40mm, so this head-on view is around 20mm wing edge to wing edge. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the purple object on which the moth is located? -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The corner of a chair. The background is a painted deck on a boat. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lasiocampidae (Eggars, lappets)

File:Sepia común (Sepia officinalis), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-08, DD 77.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2022 at 10:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info Common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. The common cuttlefish is one of the largest and best-known cuttlefish species. They are a migratory species that spend the summer and spring inshore for spawning and then move to depths of 100 to 200m during autumn and winter. They only have a lifespan of 1–2 years and have many predators including sharks, dolphins, seals, fish, and cephalopods which includes other cuttlefish. During the day, most cuttlefish can be found buried below the substrate and fairly inactive. At night however, they are actively searching for prey and can ambush them from under the substrate. Cuttlefish are carnivorous and eat a variety of organisms including crustaceans (crabs and shrimp), small fish, molluscs (clams and snails), and sometimes other cuttlefish. Fun fact: one of the few marina fauna that you could stroke (like I did with this one). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one note added. -- Ivar (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to tell you? yes, that area in the back is blurred. This image has not been edited, the subejct is in focus, the back, totally uninteresting, isn't Poco a poco (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment transition lines between blurred area and the other background should not be visible, it's easy to fix. -- Ivar (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar: I've uploaded a new version with improvements in WB, spot removal and that transition you noted. Not a big deal to me, but I hope you can support now Poco a poco (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco: I see better WB and less spots, but the transition lines are all still there, it's visible even at thumbnail. It's look like giant brush is used to partially blurry the background. Was it really necessary? -- Ivar (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar: Sorry, I give up, if that isn't what you asked for, then I'm lost. What kind of fix are you otherwise asking for. Can somebody else please give feedback to that "transition area" in the first version? --Poco a poco (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a close look at both versions. I do see some sort of transitiom lines in the first image and very obvious blurring of these lines in the second which does not improve things. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Charlesjsharp. New version uploaded I kept the WB and spot fixes and reduced the editing in the transition area limiting it to Lr's defringe brush --Poco a poco (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait of an impressive creature. --Aristeas (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda

File:VR Sr1 3015 Kuopio Drawbridge.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2022 at 13:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by David Gubler - uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ugly drawbridge dominates. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think it could be cropped in a bit on the sides to make it more about the train going over the bridge (See note). Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the nomination! I want to add a few words here. First: The location was very deliberately chosen to show the bridge as well as possible. The situation around it is very cluttered as you can see here, and I had to hide one of the road bridges behind the railway bridge to get a view (almost) without distracting elements. So you shouldn't think of this photo as a photo of a train, but as a photo of a bridge which happens to have a train going through. Second, I really don't want to cut off the train as that looks kind of unnecessary to me, also that would put the bridge very close to the edge. Third, I think the bridge's designers deserve some credit for creating something that is very minimalistic yet entirely functional, and I quite like the look of it. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charlesjsharp. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is per Kabelleger. I like the bridge. In a way, it's very utilitarian, but the clear lines of those giant rectangles give them a certain something that reminds me of modern sculptures and en:Brutalist architecture. --El Grafo (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe the bridge as Brutalist ... I haven't seen too many bridges in that style. Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's quite remarkable, I'd say. Should certainly be added to Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Finland too! --El Grafo (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per El Grafo. --Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ I'm not sure how I feel about the refinery at the right. It clutters the image, therefore I agree with the suggested image crop. 50.246.52.1 23:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IP, while your comment is of course welcome, you'll need to log in & have an account with at least 10 days and 50 edits for your vote to be counted. --El Grafo (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Support It is a beautiful bridge and picture! Awesomecat713 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. -- Karelj (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 17:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

Kadriorg Palace, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2022 at 12:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Kadriorg Palace, west side
Kadriorg Palace, east (garden) side

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Estonia
Info West side and east side of the Kadriorg Palace, Tallinn, all by me --A.Savin 12:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clean, sharp and detailed photos of both façades with good light and colours. --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice set of images. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Afternoon and morning, so the lighting is fine in both -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Estonia

File:Humayun's Tomb by Shagil Kannur (1).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 16:16:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info Humayun's tomb is the tomb of the Mughal Emperor Humayun in Delhi, India. All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is too fuzzy IMO, especially grass and people. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: 1. Very bad file processing. 2. Weak composition: random people in the foreground. 3. Distortion correction is required. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Mercedes-Benz Atego 1329 Solitude Revival 2022 1X7A0239.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2022 at 14:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info Mercedes-Benz Atego 1329 on emergency during Solitude Revival 2022, all by me - nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Sea Cow (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good QI for me -- Wolf im Wald 07:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary subject, distracting background, boring light. OK for QI but does not meet FP expectations. -- IamMM (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess this is a typical “special interest” photo: for fans of old commercial vehicles, especially fire service fans this is a very interesting and wowy picture, for other people it is … well, not that important. For a FP of this kind of subject we need to reach the level that the photograph is so good, special, etc. as a photograph that the result becomes wowy even for the other people. IMHO this does not apply here, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, unfortunately. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pieris rapae Dol.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2022 at 16:20:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info all by Yerpo — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the author: I'm aware that the focal plane is not in line with the animal, causing some unsharp parts, but I believe the picture aesthetics compensates for this. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see it passed at QI, but I think it falls well short of FP for sharpness and DoF. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. That flower above is a bit distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:3 Jaguars killing a Caiman, Parque Estadual Encontro das Águas Thomas-Fuhrmann.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2022 at 15:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info created by User:Snowmanstudios - uploaded by User:Snowmanstudios - nominated by Snowmanstudios -- Snowmanstudios (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanstudios (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow.--Ermell (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Action trumps technical weaknesses. ~~Shouldn't it be eating, not killing. I imagine it has already been killed.~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well, yeah, maybe ... It was about a minute after the attack, the caiman was still kind of alive at this moment. Tried to get away seconds later, but probably was already hurt to much. Snowmanstudios (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's a great shot. Charlesjsharp (talk)

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sea Cow (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 07:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grass is a bit distracting, but this is not something you can expect to photograph every time you go out into the wild to look for wildlife photos. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)

File:Ancienne-tour-des-Baleines-byRundvald.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2022 at 19:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by Rundvald - uploaded by Rundvald - nominated by Skimel -- Skimel (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Skimel (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good scene but the people are slightly distracting. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject shot at a really nice angle, the people don't bother me too much. But it is quite small and even at that size it is noticeably soft. That's not really among the best we have to offer in terms of aerial photography. --El Grafo (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues aside, it just doesn't stand out for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirujano estriado (Ctenochaetus striatus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-30, DD 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2022 at 21:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Acanthuridae_(Surgeonfish)
Info Striated surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus striatus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. The striated surgeonfish can reach a maximum size of 24 centimetres (9.4 in) in length, but its common size is observed to be around 18 centimetres (7.1 in). C. striatus is one of the few herbivorous fishes which are occasionally toxic. Ciguatera poisoning is caused by the accumulation of a toxin produced by certain microscopic dinoflagellates which it ingests while feeding on algae. If a contaminated fish is eaten by humans, the concentrated poison contained within its tissues causes neurological damage that can be fatal. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazing quality, however, I will change my vote if the chromatic aberration is fixed (I added a note). Thanks Support Good now, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor: Gone Poco a poco (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, let me talk about the image and its level of detail. It's the first underwater macro (100 mm) image I nominate for FP. For fishes at some distance the detail is crazy (look at those teeth!) but working with this lens is very challenging, at least to me. I need lots of shot to get one sharp. Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nunca he fotografiado bajo el agua pero se que es algo completamente diferente que en la superficie, especialmente por todo ese plancton flotando, lo rapido que se mueve un pez, etc --Wilfredor (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support one small area still has some CA (note added). -- Ivar (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into it later, in cases like this I've a clear picture about what needs to be done. Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one more note, something went wrong with postprocessing. Background is not natural there. -- Ivar (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: New version uploaded I addressed both issues Poco a poco (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Ivar (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just keep swimming! - Benh (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great for me. The subject isolation is wonderful, the fish seems to live. --Aristeas (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 17:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Acanthuridae_(Surgeonfish)

File:Coscinodiscus oculus-iridis (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg 1840 diatom shell. Colored SEM image.png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2022 at 22:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Pavel.Somov - uploaded by Pavel.Somov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive – look like some strange artefact from a science fiction movie ;–), but still a sharp and clean scan/photo. --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Vote transferred to JPEG version. --Aristeas (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why png? --Wilfredor (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (JPEG format) edit

Comment @Aristeas and Wilfredor: Please consider alternative JPEG version. -- IamMM (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for your involvement!!! JukoFF (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive – look like some strange artefact from a science fiction movie ;–), but still a sharp and clean scan/photo. --Aristeas (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Others

The chosen alternative is: File:Coscinodiscus oculus-iridis (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg 1840 diatom shell. Colored SEM image.jpg

File:Jetee-luc-sur-mer-calvados.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2022 at 20:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white#Places
Info created by Nitot - uploaded by Nitot - nominated by Skimel -- Skimel (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Skimel (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture from 2006 reveals a perspective problem, that could have been avoided IMO, and a lack of sharpness -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharon Tate Valley of the Dolls 1967 - Restoration.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2022 at 19:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by 20th Century-Fox, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support And thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:Coleus scutellarioides (cultivars) - Jardin universitaire Roger-Van den Hende, Quebec 36.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2022 at 17:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Lamiaceae
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is just asking to be a fabric print ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Daniel. Great pattern. Gallery link completed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture --Stepro (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Lamiaceae

File:Yellowstone National Park (WY, USA), Lower Geyser Basin -- 2022 -- 2401.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2022 at 17:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Wyoming
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good, though fog is mildly distracting. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fog is typical for geysers and hot springs. ;-) --XRay 💬 03:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 03:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 'fog' is important, but I like the man standing on the right pretending to be a bit of wood. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Charles. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United_States#Wyoming

File:Sorbus aucuparia 2022 G1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2022 at 07:25:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't choose flash and the resulting reflections and black background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* The black background is just the night sky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You had to mask the background though and I'd have waited till morning - that's all, George Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Charles, good composition however. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /----A.Savin 11:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae

File:Monte de Santa Luzia sanctuary in Viana do Castelo 13.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 14:45:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition, distracting tree branches. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light and obstructing branches -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, distracting brances, unbalanced composition, and am struggling to see where's the wow. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an appealing composition, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 15:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:20220817 European Championships Munich 2022 Philipp Waller 850 7845.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2022 at 21:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other_team_sports
Info Philipp Waller digging at the 2022 European Championships in Munich - there's no FP of a beach volley ball game, so let's try this one. All by me -- Granada (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as author -- Granada (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer one with the face not obscured. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see latest nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support IHMO it’s exactly the point that the ball is between the face and me: this makes me feel as if Phillip Waller was passing the ball to me. Putting the ball, the face and the whole body almost in one line gives this photo an extreme concentraction and makes it much more dynamic and interesting than the usual “from the side” overview photos. --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm split down the middle by this one. On one hand, I agree with Aristeas. But on the other hand, I think that the ball obscures the face and the face obscures the body, and that the shadow on the lower left is annoying. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not the best: part of the face is covered by a ball and it has quite disturbing shadows. -- Pofka (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:20220817 European Championships Munich 2022 Tania Moreno Matveeva 850 7683.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2022 at 15:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other_team_sports
Info created & uploaded by Granada – nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, taken at the right moment -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Llez (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Wish the background could be a little clearer. Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The right moment well captured. I like that people are currently nominating more sports images! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not one of the fines photos in sports. The scene from sideways is not really dramatic and her head isn't even sharp. This would never pass QIC.

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Other_team_sports

File:Amphipoea oculea - Keila.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2022 at 15:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed. Moth and flower in focus. Appealing background -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I'm fine either way, but was the moth placed on the flower or did it land there? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: nope, not placed. She was already there. -- Ivar (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Llez (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive resolution of such a fairly small creature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)

File:Battle of Scheveningen (Slag bij Ter Heijde)(Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraten).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2022 at 16:51:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1600-1700
Info created by Jan Abrahamsz Beerstraaten - uploaded by Vincent Steenberg - nominated by IamMM (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent reproduction of a fine example of a classic battle/seascape painting, showing an important moment in history. From my childhood I remember exactly this painting being used as cover image of a book about the history of seafaring; it’s nice to meet this painting here again. --Aristeas (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, but I think there is at least one and probably two examples of OVERCAT in this file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OVERCAT is fixed. Thanks for the hint. -- IamMM (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1600-1700

File:Вулканический пляж.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2022 at 22:16:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Far_Eastern_Federal_District
Info created by Ted.ns - uploaded by Ted.ns - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is too dark and slightly blurry. No wow factor. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seeing the description of the image and images of google map, the black color of the sand is due to the characteristic color of the volcanic sand. I do not see an apparent lack of sharpness (we are talking about a drone sensor from 2016 with just 12 MP camera). I like the completely natural colors and this unusual composition. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I very much like it as an image, but it's still unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the scenery and the colors, so the technical issues aren't that important for me in this case. -- Wolf im Wald 21:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Going forth and back on this one since days, I agree with Wolf that it’s such a painterly (even if somewhat sorrowful ;–) composition which reminds me much of modern paintings that the little technical issues not that important. --Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice positioning, but I think that the quality is not FP-level as it has a lot of noise, especially on the water. -- Pofka (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Göll (Westseite).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 11:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Hoher Göll in the Berchtesgaden Alps, seen from the west. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks like a worthy addition to the chosen category. I cannot spot technical flaws and the image is a pleasure to look at. --Granada (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed per Granada. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majestic and uplifting view. --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. I could hope for something different in the sky, but that would be unduly nitpicky. Excellent photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well balanced. -- Pofka (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria

File:FrankfurtOder asv2022-07 img37 Oderbrücke railway point.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 18:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info Aerial view of Germany-Poland border area: Oder railway bridge, freight yard, and Oder highway bridge in Frankfurt (Oder). All by me --A.Savin 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but the bridge is a little blurry. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent aerial view of the landscape. Nice atmosphere, very presentable weather and time of day. And has the Wow factor for me, very impressive -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive! -- Wolf im Wald 17:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive shot! --SHB2000 (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not decided yet. The view, light and composition are fine but altogether it’s too soft to convince me. --Kreuz schnabel 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support If it were not a drone picture, I might oppose per your remarks, but it is, and in view of that, it seems damn good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Pretty good for a drone IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany

File:Pavillon Jacquet in Nancy (3).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2022 at 17:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess the sun (and the people) arrive here later in the day? 18:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If I remember well, it was Sunday, so not many people. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks just like many other photos we have of buildings on public squares. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly Oppose per Daniel – there's no wow. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Repulsive disk in the foreground, and the left part of the image is distracting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Karelj (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasant but not special, per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Not exceptional. -- Pofka (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gemeine Goldwespe.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2022 at 01:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Chrysididae_(Cuckoo_Wasps)
Info created and uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by IamMM (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this is focus-stacked, the template should be added IamMM Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- IamMM (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course it's stacked. -- Ivar (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome level of detail, amazing colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very neat colors. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @IamMM: You have specified the gallery link as Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family : Chrysididae. That’s perfect! But I want to inform you about a potential problem. There is not yet a section “Family : Chrysididae” on the page. In this case, FPCBot can do strange things, especially it may add the photo (after promotion) to the section for another family on that page, or it may do some other nonsense. This means: Whenever we specify the gallery link with a section anchor for a section which does not (yet) exist, we must controll (after the promotion of the photo as FP) manually what the bot has done, create the new section (in this case: “Family : Chrysididae”) and move the photo to that section. I just want to inform you about this problem, because if we both (you and me) forget to check the page, the photo may end in the section for a totally different family and it may take years until somebody notices that stupid error ;–). All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation, Aristeas. After the end of this nom, I will take care of the gallery to make sure that FPCBot does not cause any problems. -- IamMM (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great, IamMM, thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IamMM & Aristeas: no worries, it's already done. -- Ivar (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ivar. -- IamMM (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, Ivar! That’s even better. --Aristeas (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the only oppose The insect itself looks overprocessed. I realize it's focus-stacked, but the colorful skin has a lot of posterization and seems very unnatural. There are also areas with ringing on the underside, a lot of ragged edges all around, a weird artifact-y halo on the bit of flower in front of the eye, among other issues. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the focus-stacking error in front of the eye should be fixed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Chrysididae_(Cuckoo_Wasps)

File:20220815 European Championships Munich 2022 Robert Gardos 850 5437.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2022 at 10:00:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info Make some noise! Robert Gardos (AUT) at the European Championships 2022 in table tennis, all by me - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Granada (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny face, but hyper-noisy background in my view, and the focus is not optimum. Sharpness missing. Just a valuable document, not a great one in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I could not shoot at lower than 1/1000s and the hall was quite dark, so the ISO went up to 5000 and that produces a lot more noise than taking a picture at the same ISO at longer exposure times. It's envitable. --Granada (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Granada, IMHO you are withdrawing your nominations too soon. We all know that sports photography often requires extreme ISO speeds, and a noisy out-of-focus background is … well, just an out-of-focus background and hence unimportant; it may be either smoothed or ignored. The facial expression and gesture of the guy is really great. Therefore – with all respect – Basile’s critique seems a bit harsh to me. I see only a single really difficult point in this photo, namely the sharpness/focus; but even this may be OK, given the resolution, and it would be interesting to discuss that here. Therefore I would like to encourage you not to withdraw your nominations so quickly :–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Aristeas, this was done out of experience. Usually one negative vote from one of the established commoners leads to a refusal of the FPC. --Granada (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand this very well, and I am very sorry for this. From time to time people declare the fall of the Roman Empire just because we promote (in their opinion) too many “unworthy” FPs. I am much more concerned about this problem – that people do not nominate their photos at all because they expect unfair and impolite critiques (I know of several people who think so) and that people withdraw their nominations quickly because they have the impression that a single harsh critique can destroy all chances of a photo. I do not say that this is the case (naturally there will be different views on this), but just the fact that people have the impression that our discussions are so unfair is IMHO a very bad sign and should make us all think over our style of discussion. --Aristeas (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reopened. Let's see what happens ... btw: I've tried Topaz Denoise on this, the face is in fact sharp, it's just noisy. Should I spend money to denoise the photo? --Granada (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other image you withdrew actually had support votes and no oppose votes. I don't like it, but I didn't oppose it. I am often accused of being impolite. It is really hard to find a nice way to reject an image that falls short of what I consider FP. I haven't voted on this image, but I dislike the facial expression and I don't think the face is sharp enough. I don't like the over-exposed table nor the busy background, which is usually a problem for sports images. I don't take this sort of photo but I do look at many in my daily newspaper, so have some sort of benchmark. It takes a long time to write all this detail down. How do I make these detailed critiques polite? On a current FPC, for imstance, I wrote the wishy-washy "The flower petals from another flower on the left are a bit distracting and the bee's head is not so sharp". Some voters start their critique "sorry" which is crazy. Except for newbies' FPCs here, I think regulars can put up with fair and direct criticism. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment “The flower petals from another flower on the left are a bit distracting and the bee's head is not so sharp” – Charles, that was not “wishy-washy”, but the best critique written by you I can remember; it sums up the problems of that photo very well. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Yes, the other nomination was withdrawn also at the same time, though nobody opposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Robert Gardos’ facial expression and gesture are great; they make this photo much more interesting, funny, and even educative for me than 99% of the sports photos I see in the newspapers etc. The background is OK. As said above, I see only one problem, namely the sharpness/focus – I wish the face was completely sharp; but considering the resolution and that no artificical sharpening etc. was applied, it’s still OK for me. --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking again at this image, there's another problem in my subjective view: the white ball merges with the white text of the t-shirt, thus it's not very distinguishable -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Aristeas. Most of its problems are indeed almost unavoidable for indoor sports shots, and I think they were handled exceptionally well here. The shirt interfering with the ball is a bit unfortunate, though.--El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very interesting scene and the facial expression represents the reaction times we table tennis players seem to have. Nevertheless there are a lot of flaws in the picture (as already mentioned).--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A great expression on his face, yes, but you have to look too closely at the image than I think you should for an FP in order to understand why, that that little round white object is not something on his jersey but the ball. Props for the effort but this wasn't that shot. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is a funny and interesting shot, but the face is way too soft for me. The whole image looks a bit overexposed – colours a bit washed-out and then saturated in processing. That might only be me. Took me some while as well to spot the ball as what it is instead of part of the jersey decoration. While this image is certainly, as I said, funny and interesting, I don’t think it’s one of our very very best ones in every respect. --Kreuzschnabel 17:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was done to the colours in post and Lightroom does not show any overexposure. --Granada (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn’t say there’s something blown but the skin just looks too bright for me. --Kreuz schnabel 20:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice facial expression, but the bottom is disturbing. -- Pofka (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:ENI 02300184 RESNOVA (47).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2022 at 20:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
Info created by S.J. de Waard - uploaded by User:Stunteltje - nominated by Stunteltje -- Stunteltje (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stunteltje (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The walkway bottom left is distracting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, cropping out walkway would make the rest of the pic too tight. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and UV32. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI definitely on the technical aspects, but composition is like too many other pics of docked boats. And at this rate—five opposes in five days and no supports besides the nominator, I think it's time to withdraw this one.Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red elephant in dirt.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2022 at 13:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Elephantidae (Elephants)
Info created & uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 14:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! -- Ivar (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice scene captured in high quality -- Wolf im Wald 17:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Aristeas (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool, not your everyday typical elephant pic. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful natural body painting -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting pics of elephants in the wild is not an easy task in the first place; a red elephant covered in dirt? That's the next level. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Awesome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- Pofka (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best elephant pictures I've seen in a while. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maanshen (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 36 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Elephantidae (Elephants)

File:Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto-Caravaggio (c.1597-1600).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2022 at 22:19:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Frescos and murals
Info created by Caravaggio, uploaded by Masur, nominated Yann
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this mirrored compared to the other files in Category:Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto by Caravaggio? --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There is a flipped version here, but this one seems to be the original. Or is it the opposite? Yann (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: It says it's self-scanned. From what? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral till we get the questions above cleared up. Daniel Case (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 06:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green bee-eater (Merops orientalis ceylonicus) with bee.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2022 at 14:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Meropidae (Bee-eaters)
Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but imo postprocessing (sharpening) has gone too far and resolution is rather on the low side. -- Ivar (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with Ivar. Charles did not nominate the photo himself, obviously for good reason. --Granada (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, this was nominated as a part of a set earlier this year, but I wouldn't put it forward on its own, but many thanks for the nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per Charles' comment. —Bruce1ee^talk 16:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2022

File:Baby tufted gray langur (Semnopithecus priam).jpg, featured edit

File:Common crab spider (Xysticus cristatus) female with prey Carniolan honey bee (Apis melifera carnica).jpg, featured edit

File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg, featured edit

File:Aktion 'Aus Abfall wird Kunst' - Karlsruhe - 2022 - 03.jpg, featured edit

File:Alice Neilsen's production of Victor Herbert's The Fortune Teller.jpg, featured edit

File:Cimetière de St-Jean de l’Île-d’Orléans.jpg, not featured edit

File:Cirrhia (Xanthia) icteritia - Keila.jpg, featured edit

File:Exposure ('De hurkende man') Lelystad. 07-03-2022. (d.j.b) 01.jpg, featured edit

File:Pez peine (Xyrichtys novacula), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 33.jpg, not featured edit

File:臺江國家公園 頂頭額沙洲.jpg, not featured edit

File:Panorama vom Knopfmacherfelsen.jpg, featured edit

File:Door detail in Prague.jpg, not featured edit

File:Ganymede - Perijove 34 Composite.png, featured edit

File:RhB ABe 4-16 Capricorn Davos Wolfgang - Davos Laret.jpg, featured edit

File:Slow Life in A Tea House 01 edited.jpg, featured edit

File:Fontana di Trevi by TC.jpg, featured edit

File:Hawfinch (Coccothraustes coccothraustes) juvenile 2.jpg, featured edit

File:นักล่า.jpg, featured edit

File:Australasian Shoveler - Goulds Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary.jpg, featured edit

File:Caesium Chloride.jpg, featured edit

File:Professeur Metchnikoff, portrait du scientifique dans un laboratoire de recherche.jpg, featured edit

File:PuckMagazine16May1906.jpg, featured edit

File:Rosa floribunda 'Fée des Neiges' in Jardin des 5 sens (2).jpg, not featured edit

File:Tallinn asv2022-04 img24 Kadriorg Park.jpg, featured edit

File:Yellowstone National Park (WY, USA), Old Faithful Geyser -- 2022 -- 2599.jpg, featured edit

File:Vancouver (BC, Canada), Canada Place -- 2022 -- 1906 (bw).jpg, featured edit

File:Veles Volos.jpg, not featured edit

File:Morenas negras (Muraena augusti), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 52.jpg, featured edit

Alt edit

File:Waste block turbine and generator in Iru Thermal Power Plant.jpg, featured edit

File:Морозний ранок над Яремчею.jpg, featured edit

Image:Kirchturmfenster IMG 2596.jpg, not featured edit

Saturnia pavonia caterpillar, featured edit

File:Eesti Kaevandusmuuseum. Väliekspositsioon.jpg, featured edit

File:Kloster Limburg - Bad Dürkheim 15.jpg, featured edit

File:Musée d'Orsay and Pont Royal, Paris 13 June 2021.jpg, not featured edit

File:Pepino de mar (Holothuria fuscogilva), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 119.jpg, featured edit

File:The Burning of the USS Missouri in Gibraltar.jpg, featured edit

File:Zaaddozen van een schijnpapaver (Meconopsis cambrica) 26-06-2022. (d.j.b).jpg, featured edit

Alternative edit

File:Nevin-aladag-villa-stuck-tusch.jpg, featured edit

File:Wilde Karde IMG 6569.jpg, not featured edit

File:Rosette, Titles of Shah Jahan.jpg, featured edit

File:Marburg asv2022-02 img18 Castle.jpg, featured edit

File:Town hall of Thonon-les-Bains (5).jpg, not featured edit

File:TÅGAB Rc2 6 Ölme.jpg, featured edit

File:Close up of a hippopotamus.jpg, not featured edit

File:The Pines, Pine Plains, NY 2016.jpg, featured edit

File:20191213 Mężczyzna z zaprzęgiem wielbłądzim, Bikaner, 1431 8471.jpg, not featured edit

File:Buffalo in dirt in Yala National Park.jpg, featured edit

File:Château de Valère et Haut de Cry - juillet 2022.jpg, featured edit

File:Kaardebol (Dipsacus). 09-07-2022 (actm.) 03.jpg, featured edit

Chama macerophylla var. sulphurea valves, featured edit

File:Mating pair of Taractrocera maevius (Fabricius, 1793) - Grey-veined Grass Dart WLB.jpg, not featured edit

File:Estrella canaria (Narcissia canariensis), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 48.jpg, featured edit

File:SJN Di 4 Finneidfjord - Mo i Rana.jpg, featured edit

File:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum skylight.jpg, featured edit

File:Celestine - Sakoany deposit, Katsepy, Mitsinjo, Boeny, Madagascar.jpg, featured edit

File:Kaohsiung Music Center and Lingyaliao Railroad Bridge lit with Ukrainian flag colors during 2022 Taiwan Lantern Festival (cropped).jpg, featured edit

File:Coral cerebro (Platygyra daedalea), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 70.jpg, featured edit

File:Les Hauts Forts 04.jpg, featured edit

File:Рудник "Мир" спустя 5 лет после затопления, г. Мирный, Республика Саха (Якутия).jpg, not featured edit

File:Dunes of Reserva Biologica de Santa Isabel - Pirambu - Sergipe - Brasil - 02.jpg, not featured edit

The Taking of Lungtungpen, featured edit

File:Bambusicola thoracicus Wuhan.jpg, not featured edit

File:Breakfast in Île d'Orléans 072.jpg, featured edit

File:Composition of the German Bundesrat as a pie chart.svg, not featured edit

File:Dents de Morcles au coucher de soleil - juillet 2022.jpg, not featured edit

File:Picos de Europa - Soto de Sajambre - @vilanchelo.jpg, not featured edit

File:Scarlet Robin - Mortimer Bay.jpg, featured edit

File:Édifice Price at night, Quebec city, Canada.jpg, featured edit

File:Eiffel Tower in 2022 01.jpg, not featured edit

File:F-35 Heritage Flight Team performs in Bell Fort Worth Alliance AirShow.jpg, featured edit

File:Fragaria vesca fruit - Keila.jpg, featured edit

File:Symphorichthys spilurus - Wilhelma 01.jpg, featured edit

File:Yosemite National Park (CA, USA), Yosemite Valley, Mirror Lake -- 2022 -- 2815.jpg, not featured edit

File:Ascaris male 200x section.jpg, featured edit

File:Lac des Plagnes 07.jpg, featured edit

File:Tartu asv2022-04 img60 StPeter Church.jpg, not featured edit

File:臺江國家公園頂頭額沙洲.jpg, not featured edit