Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2016

File:Christ Church Cathedral Interior 3, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2016 at 15:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yet another great one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support These windows! --Code (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support waiting for the next one...--Hubertl 18:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Glimmer-Tintling Coprinellus micaceus.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 13:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC) (For whoever notices that the picture was in QIC but did not pass - the "disqualification" was not related to the picture itself) [reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bottom 3/4+ of the photo including the mushrooms is lovely, but the rather aggressively blurry background at the top of the photo does nothing but injure its quality. Please crop the photo just above the topmost mushroom, or I may consider voting against this picture even though I love the mushrooms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would endorse Ikan's crop suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the crop suggested would be fine with me though I don't insist on it. The bokeh is decent enough. A blurry background / shallow DOF is pretty much unavoidable in this case. This is a macro shot (or very nearly) and the photographer did stop down to f/16... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:St Etheldreda's Church Interior 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2016 at 15:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Please view using this viewer to appreciate.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. -- Diliff (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Diliff (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually it seems that the viewer is broken at the moment. Dschwen, can you fix it? :-) In the mean time, if you want to view the image on an external site, this should work, and has the added advantage of having multi-resolution support so you can zoom in without losing as much detail. Diliff (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the two persons !! (Lol).--Jebulon (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They're statues. Next, you'll be complaining about all those people hanging from the walls! ;-) Diliff (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quite good example of the differences of perception of humor between french/latin and anglo-saxon/british... (lol again)--Jebulon (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a satisfyingly geometric image without the 360 viewer! But of course, it looks good when viewed properly. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --The Photographer (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Code (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Panellum worked for me, and I really enjoyed "visiting" this church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it seems to be fixed now. Perhaps it was a transient bug. Glad you enjoyed it, it's one of my favourite 360s. Lots of atmosphere. Diliff (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

Image:ISS-45 StoryOfWater, Colors Patiently Swirl - Haditha Dam Lake.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 02:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Satellite images
Info created by Kjell Lindgren - uploaded and nominated by Ras67 -- Ras67 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dragon formed Lake Qadisiyah in Iraq, as seen by Kjell Lindgren from the ISS in his image series The #StoryOfWater.
Support Wonderful colors, many details, high encyclopedic value -- Ras67 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ras67. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear photo, of course, and a good composition to boot. And as Ras67 said, of high encyclopedic value as well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fractal -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf im Wald 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the high resolution and quality. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

File:2014 Modding komputera 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 13:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it, and I find the pinwheel of colors on the fan at the upper left kind of hypnotic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially for me. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But I'm not going to be 8. Lots of posterization around the lights in the upper left. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the idea, and your computer is very nice looking. But, I don't like the very dirty floor underneath the computer. Your picture has inspired me to take a photo of my own computer although mine looks nowhere near as fancy as yours. dllu (t,c) 05:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@dllu The floor is no longer dirty. Photoshop has been vacuumed

. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Centerm at night as seen from Canada Place.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 08:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 08:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 08:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Colorful. Good night photography. I'm curious: How long an exposure did you use? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info It is a blend of two exposures: 0.5 s, 2 s. dllu (t,c) 05:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, that's interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl 10:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of the reflections, particularly near the center, are posterized, and the composition doesn't excite me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you consider the bi-directional reflectance distribution of water and the radiance of those gas discharge lamps, then you'll realize it's not possible to make the reflections not blown out. The brightness of the reflection is almost the same as pointing your camera directly at the gas discharge lamp. dllu (t,c) 05:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support However the right part has a 1° clockwise tilt. Some vertical control points might help. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How can you tell it has a 1° clockwise tilt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan I take stitched pictures myself so have an eye for the possible flaws. The easiest way to check verticals is to open the image in a simple viewer like IrfanView and draw a selection box (with that program, one can also move the box around with a right-click-drag, making it a ruler one can move about). Then find some parts of the image that should be vertical. The edges of buildings, window frames and in this case, the really tall lights are useful. Lights can be tricky as they taper and also smaller street lights are very often wonky. The writing "THE CANADIAN FISH" is also not straight and probably should be as it is perpendicular to the camera direction -- though one needs to be careful with horizontals and only really trust verticals. With IrfanView, a -1° rotation fixed the right-hand-side. The left side is fairly true, so this looks like a small error in the stitch. Dllu uses Hugin to stitch and this program allows one to mark certain points as being vertical, which helps the software line things up. Here, the error isn't big enough for me to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm impressed by your keen observations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your keen observations, it should be fixed now, although, as a consequence, "THE CANADIAN FISH" is now cut off :( -- dllu (t,c) 22:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Former windmill, Salasc 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 14:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, really! --Hubertl 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive AM (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dramatic scene, wonderful light and clouds! You might consider cropping just a bit of the nearest parts of the picture, which are blurry at full size, but no way would I withhold support for a wonderful picture over something that nitpicky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure, but it's unexceptional on the composition front for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Per Daniel, composition could be better. But the lighting and weather conditions are so good that I'm still inclined to support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clouds for me to the dark side. but nice image.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Incense stick.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 05:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by AntanO - nominated by AntanO -- Antan O 05:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 05:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really sharp here, and the source of the smoke is down at the bottom of the image. Compare with this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean-Baptiste Perronneau - Magdaleine Pinceloup de la Grange, née de Parseval.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 18:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Jean-Baptiste Perronneau / Getty Center, uploaded by Revent, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not very impressed with the painting, but I've liked the Getty Center's other reproductions and trust that this one is just as accurate. If any of you are familiar with the painting and know it to be more obviously volumetric in the flesh, please let us know and I'll rescind my vote of support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not impressed by the painting, and I find the photograph greyish. IMO, the wb is wrong.--Jebulon (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, in what way do you it is wrong? Do you have comparative reliable examples? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I find it too grey, I try to explain why. In my opinion, it is due to a bad white balance. Maybe I'm wrong, it is just my opinion. But I wont support.--Jebulon (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - What should I trust ? yours, or this one, even in mirror (I just tell about balance)--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't trust Pinterest, but this version from GPA may be a reliable reference. I will try to improve with that as a model. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, done. I did the minimum ajustements: a bit more light and less green. Revent, I hope you don't mind. Yann (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it looks a little better, though I'm still not impressed with the painting. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Compared with other paintings from this artist, the cat does create a more lively feeling here. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This might just be an artist I don't much like. I didn't recognize his name. Best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Iglesia de San Benito, Cambados, Pontevedra, España, 2015-09-23, DD 15.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 21:39:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Gothic-style interior of the church of San Benito, historic center of Cambados, province of Pontevedra, Galicia, Spain. The church, of neoclassical style, was formerly a Romanesque temple, renewed in the 15th century and rebuilt in the 17th century by order or Gonzalo de Valladares, whose remains are inside the temple. All by me, Poc o² 21:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be inclined to support this, but first, please explain the slant of the walls in your picture, as opposed to this one and this one. Does the wall slant or not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: as in this case versus this other case. I find it more interesting like this than after a perspective correction Poc o² 23:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find that a sensible argument and will Support featuring this on that basis. But I think there should be some kind of explanation that the wall is not actually slanted but is shown this way in order to be able to show more of the vaulted ceiling, along with the wall, or however you'd like to explain it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the uncorrected perspective is Poco's stated intent. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've read. But sorry no for me, and the crop above does not help.--Jebulon (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sometimes pointing up can work. Not this time I think. Too much distorted. (perhaps too much sharpening leading to noise). I think this scene asks for a 360 panorama. -- Colin (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hemerocallis fulva 2012 G2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 15:11:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I don't know what other people will think of this photo. It's highly skilled - definitely a Quality image - and the bokeh is quite OK, but I don't find anything special about the composition. It just strikes me as a random arrangement of flowers, with the leftmost randomly cut off, and I don't find that anything really helps me move my eye around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I like....but a crop on the left should be better --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. -- Pofka (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akropolis mit Umgebung.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a Athens! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO, you've got it ! (one category added). Very detailed, clear and pinsharp. --Jebulon (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To my eyes, this photo isn't perfect, as there are a few trees that are too close to be in focus. But it's a great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Isn't it amazing what those Canon sensors can do? Usually that shade of blue in the sky is (to me) a yellow flag that there might have been a little too much processing, but this time it's the real deal. Love the result ... it brings back very old memories of visiting Athens. Shame the Parthenon's all scaffolded up, though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel I'm curious why you praise Canon sensors here, unless as a little joke? Adobe probably has more influence in what colours you see than Canon. I assume this is a downsized-stitched panorama. Even a six-year-old entry-level DSLR with plastic $100 prime lens is capable of generating a picture like this (e.g. this photo). It's the photographer who makes the photo; Der Wolf im Wald should get your praise, not Canon. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I was talking more about the level of detail. Sort of an inside joke between me and my dad, if he happens to be reading this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The high detail and the EV of the subject compensate for the unfortunate scaffolding. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversaturated IMHO. --C messier (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Altstadt Zürich 2015.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 17:02:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a Zurich! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent, really impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, technically sound. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome quality! --Kabelleger (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Bufo bufo 2015 G3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 19:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For once one of those animal-in-environment pictures that works as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a quality image but there are better FPs already, such as File:Bufo bufo 03-clean.jpg

Nice toad too and featured on de:Wiki (not on Commons). But just compare two heads at full resolution. ;-) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support to make it shorter... --Hubertl 18:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

File:Camargue Étang de Vaccarès.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2016 at 06:36:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Cormorants at dusk on the lagoon of Vaccarès, France. The image won 8th place in WLE 2015.
Info created and uploaded by Ddeveze; nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. Very clear and minimalistic. --Code (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this poetic and relaxing to look at, with somewhat of a Zen sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support dllu (t,c) 09:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though, at the risk of repeating myself, it would be greatly improved with a 16:9 crop to remove some sky and bring the birds forward a bit. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subtle and beautiful minimalism. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is it a joke or what else? Sorry, no wow, unsharp, a lot of nothing, no interesting colors ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the colors are what make it interesting... Yann (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is simple "too minimalistic" for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - This has also EV, as showing birds in their natural environment in a natural reserve known for bird wild life. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support motifs can´t be minimalisticly enough... It´s the art of abstraction.--Hubertl 22:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can definitely imagine too minimalistic a picture. How about a totally featureless black image? :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment or only skyblue: . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Yes indeed. A featureless sky does not a Featured picture make. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressionistic. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

The chosen alternative is: File:Camargue_Étang_de_Vaccarès.jpg

File:Marianische Männerkongregation Munich.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 14:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual but interesting view. Congratulations Jebulon! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this view, as it allows more of the ceiling to be visible along with the altar in a horizontal orientation, something that's usually a struggle in taking a picture in a church with a low ceiling. Plus it just has great atmopsherics. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If you can get back there to take another picture in fuller light, that would be good to see. But that said, I do consider this a very good picture that's worthy of featuring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The low viewpoint really enhances the mirror effect of the floor. Quality is not the best but OK IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks to Arion. I had completely forgotten this picture ! That's what you can do when you miss a tripod ! Camera on the ground, a prayer book (for a church. Difficult to find in a super market, chose something else) for stabilization, and a shutter ! Alleluia !--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Ely Cathedral High Altar, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 06:42:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I run out of superlatives for your church interiors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the nomination again Code. Ikan, I was quite productive with church interiors in 2014-2015. ;-) Diliff (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big file but very much worth it ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Metro MSK Line2 Novokuznetskaya.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2016 at 13:23:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created + uploaded by Florstein - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info {{FoP-Russia}} for the design, {{PD-old}} for the ceiling mosaique (by Frolov †1942), COM:DM for the reliefs. --A.Savin 13:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, in full resulution you can see the severe lack of quality. --Hubertl 13:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite all possible disadvantages, I like this photo anyway. Bravo, maestro! --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lack of details (noise, processing, DoF) mean one can't really see the mosaic or the relief along the edges. It looks like there's been a struggle to manage the dynamic range of the scene, particularly around the the wall lights. Perhaps, rather than go for a symmetrical arrangement, an off-centre view (like File:Novokuz-mm.jpg) would allow the central lamps to feature and lead the eye. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the problems the others are seeing, but I am not feeling inclined to oppose this photo because it's an excellent motif and well composed. However, it is a problem that whereas the photo looks good at full-page size, it suddenly is greatly damaged by toggling it to full size. As Colin addresses above, I think it must be technically quite challenging to deal with the bright lamps in the center of the floor and get good resolution on all the decorative elements simultaneously. I hope there's a good way to do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice try, however, IMHO we need more DoF and less ISO, maybe using tripod. I am sorry --The Photographer (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hubertl. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality... -- Pofka (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adelie penguins in the South Shetland Islands.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 16:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by ravas51 - uploaded by Peterfitzgerald (by Flickr upload bot) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great subject, composition and mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this picture is NOT photoshopped for sure? I have doubts. --Hubertl 17:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're first. ;-) Noise and IMO not natural penguins. Background overprocessed. And a very small file. --XRay ^talk 17:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, at least it looks transported penguins... --Laitche (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral OK, it isn't photoshopped but overprocessed especially penguins are oversharpened, so I cannot support this. --Laitche (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Doesn't look 'shopped, and the noise doesn't bother me either. It IS, however, tilting to the ~~left~~ right. ~2.5 degrees ccw will solve, will support when that's done. KennyOMG Support now. KennyOMG (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chilly. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support given that it's not photoshopped... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, this is a great photograph, taken under very adverse circumstances (OK, it was summer, but still!). I guess I may not be that skilled at seeing oversharpening, but is it really that drastic? Perhaps it could be corrected. By the way, I did a Google image search on "penguins in snow" and did see other pictures in which penguins had part of their bodies in the snow, so I don't think that's so odd. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral In my opinion disturbing noise in the background.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's funny: I find a lot of the bokeh that most of you like a lot more fuzzy and disturbing than this noise, which I ascribed (perhaps incorrectly) to a focus on the nearby penguins. I see the noise some at full size but at full-page size, it doesn't bother me and just looks like a background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't see anything in there that would suggest that the image content has been manipulated, especially when viewed in context with the other pictures of that trip at Flickr. Yes, it's a bit noisy when seen at full resolution, but you could easily print this at A4 (or possibly even A3) without noticing. I'd welcome the slight tilt to be corrected, but as it's hard to recognize I don't really care. All in all: Awesome picture. --El Grafo (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support Only because the penguins (which I think the image creator overprocessed the image as a whole to get so sharp, hence the skepticism above) came out so well and it is really difficult to get this sort of shot for any animal in the wild. In addition to the noise issues, the background has a lot going on; only the crispness of the penguins keeps it from being too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice enough photo, but why should it be considered for FP? Charles (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think post-processing could be better. Background needs de-noising (or at least less sharpening), and the whole picture a CCW rotation. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @KennyOMG, El Grafo, and Kabelleger: Tilt fixed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Church of the Holy Apostles back ancient agora Athens.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2016 at 17:06:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support From the backside, the top of the Church of the Holy Apostles in the Ancient Agora of Athens, Greece. This is the first christian church in the Agora, and this part, original, was built in the 10th-century. I like this typical and old byzantine style. The pigeons seem to like shadow !-- Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a terrific picture in all respects - composition, technical execution - and the motif is wonderful. Congratulations! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine details. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Strohfiguren in Daldrup -- 2015 -- 5954.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 17:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite funny and also well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and funny ! Just one minus: the light is not the best.--Jebulon (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Jebulon; the faces are in shadow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Nearly everything is in shadow. It's dawn and very early in the morning. --XRay ^talk 04:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, just doesn't work for me. Not sure whether it's the lighting or the subject --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I might not have included it, I can see why you have the sign in this. I love it because now I know that that sort of Midwestern, um, corniness did not originate there but rather came to the U.S. with all the German immigrants (But, over here, the sign would say something like "Hay there! Welcome to Orson!") Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. I see such hay sculptures too often. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Purple osteospermum.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 16:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by AntanO -- Antan O 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure what to think about this photo, so I'll just describe it: The flower, which is at the middle of the picture frame, is very clear at full size - which is way bigger than life-sized - except for the outermost parts of the petals, which are still clear. The crumpled-up blue/purple flower at around 10 o'clock past the flower is moderately clear. Leaves are visible, but the rest of the photo is pretty much of a blur. I guess the photo is OK, overall, at full-page size, but I'm not really sure what the blurry ground adds to it, other than a general sense of place. I suppose others will consider that this picture should be featured because it's such a clear photo of the flower, and for an encyclopedia, that's good enough. I'd probably prefer a very close-cropped photo that concentrates on the flower and eliminates most of the blur, but I suspect most other reviewers on this site would consider that a bad composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I, too, believe the image could be cropped in from the sides without any loss. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinary subject but very well-taken with high EV. It needs a square crop though; the sides aren't doing anything for the image. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:SJ Rc 1383 Stockholm Central.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2016 at 13:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Vivo - uploaded by Vivo - nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ArionEstar, Frank Schulenburg, and XRay: I have cropped it a little bit. Do you also think it's better, or should it be reverted to the previous version? Vivo (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's barely noticable and doesn't make a difference to me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Easy to make a photograph of an arriving locomotive a QI (especially inside); hard to make it featurable. This one has great detail and captures the power and bulk of the locomotive as few other pictures of locomotives in stations do (maybe it helps that it's black). I love the way the engineer's face seems so nonchalant for a guy at the throttle of this machine. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christof46 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Impressive! —Bruce1ee^talk 06:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:The old townhall of Bamberg 089.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 14:07:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice view. You might indicate where you shot the photo from. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support The areas at right might be somewhat distracting, but the striking buildings closer to the camera make up for it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially considering the age of this photo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info BTW - File:Bamberg 1900.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought the featuring element of this photo is composition but that composition is not the original? --Laitche (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info - This photo won the Photo challenge called "100 years later" in October, 2015. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh ok, thanks :) --Laitche (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry: Rather small file, not very sharp and compositionally not more than QI. --Code (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. QP. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. — TintoMeches, 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not really convienced by the composition --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliodoxa jacula Santa Elena 1.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2016 at 01:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by and uploaded by Cephas - nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, too much of the bird is blurry for me, even at full-page size (which doesn't actually produce a very large view because the picture is not wide from left to right). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. Hummingbirds are not that easy to photograph, at least for me... I like the story in the picture with the bee, cool. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cephas please can you embed an sRGB colour profile into the JPG. The image is tagged sRGB but unfortunately browsers ignore this if there's no corresponding profile embedded and then on a wide-gamut monitor the colours look far too vivid (see User:Colin/BrowserTest). I hope there is a setting on your Canon Digital Photo Professional to save with a sRGB profile. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a really well taken image. My thoughts are mainly with the processing. In addition to what Colin said about the profile, it looks like it could do with noise reduction (at least on the background if not on the bird itself). It's a shame that there's a lot of blur but I could forgive it in this case. Diliff (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the color issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition with OOF bee doesn't work for me, particularly on a feeder photo like this which are so easy to take. Charles (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Prowincja Sjunik, Goris, Widok na Stary Goris (Kores) (14).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2016 at 14:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been looking at your photos. You take a lot of good Quality images, but I believe this would be your first FP? This is clearer than the other photos by you that I've looked at in full size, and I find the composition sufficiently interesting to support this, but I really don't know how many others will consider it featurable or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't see any FP composition here. Just a random bit of mountain. Not very sharp either. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Not that I don't think an FP is impossible here, but there should be either more or less than this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing particularly remarkable about the lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Usual shot. -- Pofka (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSIRO ScienceImage 3881 Five Antennas at Narrabri.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 06:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space_exploration#Others
Info Five antennas of the Australia Telescope Compact Array, near Narrabri, NSW. Photograph taken in the early 1980s, during the late stages of the construction process. Long exposure, lit by walking under the antennas with a flash. You can read more about the taking of this image on page 10 of this document. This is the photograph of the ATCA, used in old CSIRO media releases, so along with its historical and aesthetic value I think it deserves featuring.
Info created by John Masterson of CSIRO - uploaded by 99of9 - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as sharp and large as we're used to but still excellent considering its age and the technical possibilities when it was taken. --Code (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Code and its historic importance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable image. But on reading the linked document, the duration of the photograph isn't given whereas the "130" figure refers to the number of flashes fired during the exposure. I've amended the file description page. -- Colin (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you @Colin: excellent detective work. I rushed the research in my haste to put this nomination up. I've changed the description here too. Oops! :) -- Thennicke (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to the awesome technical achievement. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support While I'd prefer a sharper image, I support given the year that the photo was taken. --Pine^✉ 19:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space_exploration#Others

File:Forced perspective gallery by Francesco Borromini.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 07:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is symmetrical. Very good work. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 19:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Blown areas at the far end due to the sun, but they're not really the point of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johann Jaritz: I disagree: see the top of the four columns in foreground.--Jebulon (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: Done merci --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon: Well, OK. Anyway, Livioandronico made a great shot. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "forced" perspective is very interesting to explore.--Jebulon (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria-Magdalenen-Kirche, Eberswalde, Orgel, 150926, ako.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 06:20:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info Organ of the Maria-Magdalenen-Kirche (Eberswalde, Brandenburg, Germany). The organ dates back to the year 1783 while the church was built in 1333. Getting the white balance right was a little bit tricky because the artificial light in the lower part was very different from the daylight in the upper part of the picture. Photograph created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Code (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see a way to improve this image. You've done a really good job. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work. I hope they do something about those cracks in the ceiling! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is well balanced, no complaints at all. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. -- Colin (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can practically smell the wood as I look through it at full resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not bad ! A suggestion before voting: what about a crop of some ranks of the church benches in order to emphasize the organ and the vaults ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frechheit! Eberswalde ist mein Revier. Ich fühle mich gestalkt ;) --Ralf Roleček 16:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Argentina 1828 8 Escudos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 19:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by United Provinces of the River Plate (coin), National Numismatic Collection (image) - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not good, but excellent ! Highly interesting, and great value. The categorization was a bit "short", I've added some. Please remember to take care of this, that's better for Commons and for the exposition of your image ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I fully agree with Jebulon, but to me, what's truly great about this photo is that not only is it of value as documentation, it's also a really good composition that's a pleasure to look at for its own sake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- +1, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Godot13 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Beijzelde knoppen van Skimmia Japonica ‘Rubella’. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 16:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Rutaceae.
Info Icy flower buds of Skimmia japonica 'Rubella'. Location, Garden Reserve Jonker valley. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. I'm still not fully comfortable with the blurring near and far that results from the very focused depth of field that shows these beautiful frosted buds, but that section of the photo is special and the whole photo looks pretty decent up to full-page size, though I don't really recommend for people to spend much time looking at much other than the buds at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per Ikan, knowing that this was probably the best that could be achieved short of focus stacking, and even then ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Not quite sharp, but good composition. --Hockei (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:San Rocco all'Augusteo (Rome) - Interior HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 20:31:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I imagine it was a challenge to avoid having the areas lit by the lamps get completely blown out, while still showing the darker areas effectively. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, given that it was a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Odles da Seceda da duman tl nibl Gherdëina.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 22:32:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Infoall by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes indeed! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Milseburg (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Große Klasse, Wolfgang! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support magnificient! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overwhelming. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No doubt for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:เศียรพระพุทธรูปในรากโพธิ์.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2016 at 22:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"The head of a sandstone Buddha statue nestled in the tree roots beside the minor chapels of Wat Maha That, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province, Thailand. The temple is one of the most tourist and photographic attractions in the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Ayutthaya, an ancient capital of Siam." -- description by User:Potapt

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Siripatwongpin - uploaded by Siripatwongpin - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual and interesting. Yann (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite heavily processed but the result works. -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose totally overprocessed, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Colin. --Hubertl 11:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent subject, but per Martin Falbisoner. Additionally, Buddha (?) is really too noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin. --Laitche (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wonderful picture ruined by processing. KennyOMG (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this particular situation, I think overprocessing works. — TintoMeches, 11:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. -- Pofka (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Colored flowers e.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 21:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Poster of coloured flowers. Fresh new version of an old nomination. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful job --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty and high-resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I missed your flower posters. I support, as per my december 2014 vote !--Jebulon (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 07:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info The famous roofs of Quanhua Temple, located in the Lion's Head Mountain Scenic Area, Taiwan. It was a foggy afternoon, shortly before dusk, not quite the conditions you hope to find at such a place. However, it turned out, that the greyish background acted as a surprisingly suitable, undistracting contrast to the colours and filigrane details of the roof decorations.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High-quality photograph. I won't be surprised if someone says there's "too much going on" in it or something similar, and I'll be pleasantly surprised if everyone appreciates the complex form and doesn't think it's the least bit chaotic, overwhelming in some way that bugs them or whatever. In any case, I certainly appreciate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally Uwe Aranas style. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support@Ikan Kekek: Perhaps I was the one you were thinking of? Actually, in this case, "a lot going on" is exactly the point, and shooting it on a cloudy day actually helps because the light treats the colors equally instead of creating posterization issues or clipping problems. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm glad this photo works for you, and you give a clear explanation of why. However, I wasn't just thinking of you. I've seen a number of people complain either that there "is too much going on" in a photo, that a photo with a complex form is "chaotic", or that it was a problem that they couldn't tell what the subject of the photo was. Of course, a lot of this is purely a matter of opinion (a complex form can indeed be chaotic, I think we would all agree), but there is a difference in terms to a degree, inasmuch as I don't think I would ever give mere complexity or multiplicity of forms or lack of a singular subject as a reason to oppose a photo (though I reserve the right to do that at some point in a specific context). To me, a complex form isn't a problem unless there's something that makes it not work, and the same is true of a simple form. As someone who grew up looking at a lot of paintings, I find that the landscape or cityscape itself is quite often the subject, and it can be quite complex and rich, requiring the viewer to stand in front of the picture for several minutes looking around the composition in order to understand the work well. Some photos are like that, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and ten. --Hubertl 23:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - By the way and in general: I share both Daniel's and Ikan's views here above.--Cayambe (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama Salzburg Dezember 2015.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 15:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by pro2 - uploaded by pro2 - nominated by pro2 -- pro2 15:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - A little hazy, especially when compared to the two panoramas nominated above. But I still like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great view, but I'd like it better without the shadow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really convinced by the light conditions. Also, there's some vignetting (see the section on vignetting at Commons:Image guidelines#Stitched images, panoramas) going on where the single images are joined (may be exaggerated when viewed downscaled, though). --El Grafo (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows ruins it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poertschach Johannes-Brahms-Promenade Promenadenbad Rutschenturm 21012016 0295.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 10:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm... it´s slightly tilted to the left, the shoreline is not identical with the mirror of the reed in the water... You can see it on the constructio of the water slide too. --Hubertl 12:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks, Hubertl, for your helpful comment. I slightly rotated the image in cw direction and uploaded this corrected version. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was looking at this photo in the selection of Quality images and wondering whether you'd nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, Ikan, for your friendly exhortation. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok now. --Hubertl 18:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not oppose for that reason, but I think that two fp of this object are sufficient IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Die feine Abstimmung der Blautöne in Kombination mit dem Spiegeleffekt und dem außergewöhnlichen Motiv machen dieses Bild wirklich besonders. Vielen herzlichen Dank für diesen Beitrag. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Der Dank ist ganz meinerseits für dieses außergewöhnliche Lob. Thank you very much. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Composer Rossini G 1865 by Carjat - Restoration.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 13:43:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Étienne Carjat - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a good portrait that holds up well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Michel Fokine, Arlequin.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 18:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Atelier Jaeger / Gallica, uploaded, restored, and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the elegant simplicity of this postcard. Also feature a famous choreographer and dancer. -- Yann (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, Fokine is absolutely important, he's photographed in a very expressive pose, and the image is in good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very artistic. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good historic image ... also different from what we see here usually. Daniel Case (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see you restored it, clone out some defects, well done thank you. But you also change WB, my words are not a real criticism as I'm not a I am not a specialist of restoration or of old pictures, however I think the near sepia touch was/is a deliberate artistic choice for some black and white photographers. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't change the white balance, I change the mode to "grayscale". The original is not sepia. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more excellent and useful restorations of old photographs (or engravings or maps etc) we have as FP, the better it is for Commons...and for my own pleasure !Thanks Yann.--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably go a bit heavier for the dust spots on the background, but you got all the large ones. One issue is that I'd remove the two stamps if you're converting to greyscale - it's misleading as those, at least, had colour. Weak oppose for the stamps (Above Fokine and below the signature), since we've lost information there, but if they're edited out... Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam Cuerden, these are on the original postcard, so removing that would go much further than restoring the scan. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you need to actually keep the colours, or declare them unoriginal and remove them, I don't think that one can justify greyscaling elements unambiguously intended to be in colour, but I also think that library stamps aren't inherently part of an image, so there's solutions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Paul-Löbe-Haus, Westseite, Frontalansicht, Berlin-Mitte, 151223, ako.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 20:14:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Code - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition. The sky seems a bit noisy, but not too bad, and I think the varied light conditions must have been challenging, because it was vital to get clear detail of the inside of the Paul-Löbe-Haus without losing the rest of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for the nomination, Christian! A special detail of this picture is the fact that the chancellery is reflecting in the facade of the Paul-Löbe-Haus which makes the composition quite interesting and is probably an important element of the architecture, too (government reflecting in parliament). --Code (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is marvelous. I gave it a shot once myself, to no avail. This being said, the photo's a bit too yellowish for me. This is by no means a dealbreaker, the lighting situation is indeed very tricky, and I do love the colorful effect here, but you may have overdone it. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Martin. Indeed it was your picture which inspired me to try it myself. I agree that the WB of your shot is much colder which is usually a good choice for architectural photography. I'm not really sure which one I like better. However, I set the WB manually using the live view of my camera so I believe that it reflects reality quite well. In the end, it may of course be a matter of taste anyways. --Code (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Colour saturation, particularly with artificial lighting, is always a matter of taste. It's difficult judge from how you imagine it looks because there are no cues 'in nature' to compare to, whereas we generally know what colour the sky is, or what colour grass is. I do know from experience though that if you try to correct the WB based on the artificial light, you will make everything else outside much too cool. What you could try is to set two white balances, one for the interior and one for the exterior. In Lightroom, you can do this dynamically with the WB and tint adjustment brush, but you could also do it with Photoshop layers. Just a thought anyway. I like it the way it is though. Diliff (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done -- Thennicke (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kallaste kalmistu.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 23:35:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Kairi Kalmann - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WLM 2015 winner in Estonia.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And it deserved that award quite handily. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kairi Kalmann (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Misvormde (Atypische vorm van de) paarse schijnridderzwam (Lepista nuda; synoniemen, Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum en Agaricus nudus).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 06:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Lepista nuda. # Family Tricholomataceae.
Info: Deformed (Atypical form of) purplish mushroom knight (Lepista nuda; synonyms: Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum and Agaricus nudus)created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite an unusual sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work with high educational value.--Hubertl 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Hubertl. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unusual. But at only 1747 × 1316 px it doesn't even fill an HD monitor screen. In 2016 I don't see any reason why this kind of photo can't be 12MP+. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment photo is from 2013 and is cut to get the deviation as large as possible on screen.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how 2013 makes any difference. The camera used was 18 megapixels. If you'd taken it closer (or used a longer focal length) then there's no reason this couldn't be frame-filling sharpness 18MP. Instead we have a fairly soft 2.3MP. I think to submit modern photos this small, there's got to be really good justification (like super long telephoto or very high ISO necessary). -- Colin (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 mpx is enogh for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know someone said that 640K ought to be enough for everybody, but... by others above. Yann (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2 MP are enough for me but the picture has a purple color cast. --Ralf Roleček 16:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not the fresh color of a sound mushroom. This is a sick mushroom.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Tykadlo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 23:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created and uploaded by Pavel kejzlar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I approve of this picture out of pure scientific interest and encyclopedic value, but it's also interesting to look at for its own sake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Oppose, because I agree with the others that "butterfly feeler" is not a sufficient identification. What type of butterfly? Attention should be paid to clearly valid objections, and since this is an electromicrograph, it seems particularly important for the scan to be documented in a scholarly way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very nice and useful image... but the file description needs to be expanded (scanning electron migrograph, scale) and the species needs to be identified. --Cayambe (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for obvious visual reasons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely texture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Potentially interesting, but little use if we don't know what it is. Charles (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we have more information. Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Yann --Hubertl 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann, until there is more information. --Cayambe (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:1-month-old kittens 32.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 19:21:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by 0x010C - uploaded by 0x010C - nominated by 0x010C -- — 0x010C ^~talk~ 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — 0x010C ^~talk~ 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, QI yes, FP not. Camera shake, not perfectly focussed. --Hubertl 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The camera has focused behind the eyes and the nose is completely oof. The eye on the left is in shadow. Kittens may be cute, but the photography has to be first-class and this isn't. Consider we have far far better pictures of lions and tigers and they're a wee bit harder to photograph than one's cat. -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and Hubertl. Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. DoF too small and/or wrong focus. And too much empty space at the right. --XRay ^talk 16:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers, nice kitten though. --Cayambe (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also agree with the opposers, although the kitten is super-cute! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have to agree with Colin, so I give up this nomination ; thanks all for your reviews — 0x010C ^~talk~ 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lotus flower (978659).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 10:49:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Hong Zhang - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Josve05a -- Josve05a (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Josve05a (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic and iconic! And now you'll see a remark from me that you've never seen before: This is outstanding bokeh; in my opinion, it's exemplary, and the effect of it is to put the iconic lotus flower (and part of the stem) in a kind of mystical, symbolic landscape. Yes, the one lotus flower is very realistic and detailed, but this composition goes beyond realism to create what looks almost like a brushily painted background, which partly because of the more or less dark greens and partly due to its texture, is not assertive (as when I complain of an "aggressively blurred background" that may contain a grainy surface) but is clearly a supporting actor that fades into the distance while still having a presence that helps set a mood. I hope that makes sense, but in any case, I love this artistic creation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image does not have any colourspace tag (or profile), which is required by the Commons:Image guidelines. Assuming sRGB, I may be able to insert these tonight if I get a chance (without this metadata, colours do not display properly on some browser/monitor combinations). The guidelines also require proper categorization and the only categories this image is in are maintenance categories that say "unknown flowering plant". Which is as useful EV-wise as "unknown church". Perhaps someone can identify this. The image is nice, though the saturation/contrast is strong. It isn't hard to take a nice picture of a big flower like this (see the Commons:Featured pictures/Plants) so I think we should insist on identification for our "finest" plant photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I have added the relevant tag/profile (assuming it was sRGB). Without some identification I oppose however. The actual JPG is heavily compressed and the background quite blocky and posterised suggesting over-processing. -- Colin (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~. Oppose I don't see how this can be featured when the plant is not identified. Without this, the image has no encyclopaedic value.~~. Charles (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Needs an identification~~. A bit overprocessed (overcontrasted IMO)--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I will !vote support if there's an ID. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
neutral As Daniel --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Charlesjsharp, Jebulon, Daniel Case, Livioandronico2013, and Colin: Identified. Josve05a (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but my JPG quality concerns remain -- it is simply too compressed as a JPG (only 500KB) leading to blocky and posterised background. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - We talked about this a little on my user talk page, but since this is a blurred background in which clear realism is not envisioned, anyway, why does it matter if it's posterized, as long as it looks good and helps the flower look good? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree.--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And before we even get into that someone needs to make sure it is licensed as CC-0 at the original website, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - License review has been performed, by Revent. Josve05a (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me now --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record (having done the license review). The image is available rather widely across the internet. Google images and Tineye both indicate no usages that are at higher resolution, or are older, than that on Pixabay (the source for this image). I see no indication, at all, that this was not released under CC0 by the original author. Its also beautiful. Revent (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revent, would you like to vote on whether to support or oppose the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I wanted to take some time to 'really look at it' before voting, because from as aesthetic point of view I really like the image. There are a couple of issues tho... first, and briefly, looking at the histogram and colocube confirms my impression that parts of the image are completely burned in. The bigger problem I have is that, to be honest, Colin is correct. The bokeh effect here does not appear to be the result of the actual photography, but the result of extensive post-processing. When viewed at 'native resolution' on a large LCD, the posterization is really, really obvious, even on parts of the flower itself. This is a 8 bit jpeg, so has a 'theoretical' color depth of about 16 million colors... the actual file here has about 230k, less than 2% of that.

Also, looking at an 'error level analysis' confirms my impression.... the flower appears to have been masked out, and processed separately from the rest of the image. I think Colin is slightly mistaken on one point though... the image is saved at 94%, which is not a particularly high level of compression... it's not a small file or posterized from being overcompressed, it's just small because so much detail was removed while processing that it compresses really well... meh. I think I have to

Oppose it as a FP, even though I 'like it', because it's a better example of photoshop use than of photography. Sorry. Revent (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that in-depth analysis. However, I have one small thing to point out. The is a nomination for "Featured picture" not "Featured photograph" ;) Josve05a (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's the difference? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really, just that if you think it is a beautiful picture then it is beautiful and should be promoted as such. Then if it may not be the best photography you can take, that's a difference story. Post-processing might have made it look good and it's not in it's natural form, but that doesn't make it a less beautiful picture. Josve05a (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I agree with this, and what's more, so does pretty much everyone who votes here, at least in the sense that people ask for things that were actually there to be removed from the photo for aesthetic reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Maybe I could have phrased myself better. I think it's a beautiful photograph, when viewed as a thumbnail, and that if the creator had managed the exact same effect 'without' reducing the image quality so much, I would not oppose it. I just think that, when viewed at full size (or, probably, when printed) the flaws created in the processing are distractingly obvious, to the point that it's not really usable unless scaled down significantly. Revent (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation, but I'm not sure I understand. Does this have to do with the bokeh? Because bokeh typically is a big blur, and I find this blur pleasant, which is not usually the case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Only in that the bokeh was not created in the 'photographic process' (i.e., not through the use of settings on the camera), but through postprocessing. That would itself be fine, if well done. However... I temporarily cropped out a small section of the background, specifically so that it would appear at full resolution (and then reverted myself)... it's in the history on the file page. If you look at it closely, it's not just 'blurred', but significantly posterized as a result of the amount of digital processing done in order to create the bokeh effect. To my eye, at least, it's really obvious when looking at the full image instead of a scaled down thumbnail. Revent (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, but I would further respond that I don't care if it's posterized, because it's a deliberately blurred background, anyway. If you find the result aesthetically displeasing, then I can completely understand why you'd object to it, regardless of the process used to achieve the result. However, I'm not fully clear on whether that's the issue or whether you are objecting based on the idea that posterization is a technical fault in how the bokeh effect is achieved, rather than based on aesthetic criteria. If that's the case, it wouldn't make any sense to me because a blur is a blur, not (generally speaking) an attempt at a realistic depiction of how our eyes would actually see a scene, and the only basis that makes sense to me to use in judging bokeh is a resort to aesthetic, not technical, criteria. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I, indeed, think the image is technically flawed, and to a high enough degree that the flaws are obvious at full resolution. I think it's aesthetically pleasing (it's pretty) but we have far better images with similar content. I don't think it's 'one of the best images on Commons', at all. I think someone took a good photo and broke it so that it only works as a thumbnail. Revent (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are many better images with similar content, that's certainly a valid reason to oppose featuring this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 18:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and- uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful scene and a pretty good composition, though I wish it were slightly wider (I don't like the lion[?] on the right side being cut off and the one on the left nearly cut off). But I'm not convinced by the light. The lamps look blown out and I'm not so sure about the forest, either, when I look at it in full size. Might you be able to make a few adjustments to further improve this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please crop a little at right or ad some space at left (not symmetrycal)--Jebulon (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So much to look at that I could spend hours doing so. I'm not bothered by the blown-out lamps ... they're not really that much of the image, and when I looked at the .EXIF data my thoughts that this was a long exposure were confirmed ... at 1.3 sec, you'd hardly expect anything else of a light source. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 23:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by anonymous - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good job on the restoration (I read your notes on it). Very important figure in American history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good job on the restoration! It's a very old image, so I'm OK with the weak level of over-all sharpness. I'd maybe even be OK with the focus being on the chest area around the button rather than the face. It's the background that makes this a pretty weak portrait, imho: Dark suit, dark hair and dark skin in front of a dark background. My eyes are inevitably drawn to the white shirt, as that's the only thing that really stands out. Then they go down to the suit, which is sharp and well-lit. Only after that they move up to the face, which is less sharp and mostly in the shadows. The eyes are so deep in the shadows that the white areas look like a very dark gray.

TL;DR: giving every bonus I can for 1910s technology, the dark background makes this not featureable for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support For the 1910....very good. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo. Great work on the restoration, but unfortunately it brought out the weaknesses of the original portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reason for the dark background is otherwise you'd have a floating head (light background + white shirt). It's a superb portrait of Uncle Peanut. KennyOMG (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not saying the photographer should have used a white background – there are plenty of shades available in-between. Now you've got a white V floating in space … --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good restoration, and undeniably high EV, but one of our best portraits? I don't think so... Yann (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vale dos Deuses.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2016 at 23:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Shooterb9 - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous atmosphere. There's some unsharpness, but since most of the background is obscured by haze anyways, to me it's not a huge deal. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 05:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is it just me or is there in fact quite a lot of unsharpness, noise, etc.? Possibly badly overprocessed... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King of Hearts. There's a bit of chromatic aberration on the grass in the near right corner, but that's a small part of the picture and I can see it only at full size. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed a very nice pic and mood, but due to denoising or whatever unsharp. Where is the location? Please add. -- -donald- (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely fo Martin,very sorry but is real overprocessed --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice mood, but strong chromatic noise in the shadowed parts (please see note)--Jebulon (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Martin Falbisoner, -donald-, Livioandronico2013, and Jebulon: Thanks for all comments. It's fixable? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the chroma noise is too strong to be corrected, in my opinion. One should denoise again, and...the picture will look posterized.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - per Jebulon --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality. -- RTA 12:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Augustus Bronze X23322 NAMAthens.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 21:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This bronze equestrian statue of the emperor Augustus (29BC - AD 14). Found in the Aegean sea between the islands of Euboea and Agios Efstratios. The emperor is depicted in mature age, mounting a horse. He wears a tunica decorated with a meander pattern. Iconographic features of the Prima Porta gesture of official greeting. The hilt of his sword can be seen below the left hand, in which he helds the horse's reigns. On the bezel of his finger-ring a staff of divination (lituus) is engraved, symbolizing the supreme religious office of Pontifex Maximus, assumed by Augustus in 12 BC. One of the masterpieces of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good documentation, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hail _Imperator Caesar _{Divi filius Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Co(n)s(ul) XIII, Imp(erator) XXI, Trib(uniciae) pot(estatis) XXXVII, P(ater) p(atriae)} --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture and good photographer. More Jebulon and more Greece. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that is Rome in Greece... @Martin Falbisoner: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio. (Horatius)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow effect for me due to poor background and sub-optimal lightning at site. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Big Buck Bunny 4K.webm, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 23:44:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Blender Foundation, uploaded by Matanya, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Free, very high quality, and hilarious. -- Yann (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support mdr, amazing free art work --The Photographer (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 00:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How did you guys get this to play? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a popup when you clicked on the arrow in the middle? Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it wouldn't play. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wait a bit. If it still doesn't work, try YouTube. Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did wait. In several tries, it didn't work. Thanks for the YouTube link.

Support

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best video on FPC in a while. Would keep a class of primary-grade students distracted for ten minutes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Juist, Memmertfeuer -- 2014 -- 3533.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 17:16:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very clean and successful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I like the little boat in the foreground. A pity that there's this ugly fence behind the lighthouse. --Code (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but tilted CCW. I will support after this issue is resolved -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed @George Chernilevsky: It's fixed now - a small amount only, but fixed. Thanks for your advice. --XRay ^talk 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice now, so Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the simplicity. Perhaps there is a slight tilt; if so, it has either been corrected or I don't see it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Tilt? I just fixed it some minutes ago. May be you've seen the version from the cache. Did you really see a tilt now? --XRay ^talk 16:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Done. :-) --XRay ^talk 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Patrick's Cathedral Choir 360x180, Dublin, Ireland.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 14:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Please view using this viewer to appreciate.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is Ireland's largest church/cathedral and was built in the 12th century. You may notice the Royal Standard visible in many of the flags hanging above the choir. This is an intersting historical quirk of the cathedral. It was originally built as a Catholic Cathedral, but after the English Reformation, it was converted to Anglican. Despite Ireland being a Catholic-majority country, both of it's main cathedrals (the other being Christ Church Cathedral) have since remained Church of Ireland (Anglican). -- Diliff (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one. --Code (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very bright day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support More Irish architecture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are a small horizontal problem just above of the arc, it look that like tilt. (see note). --The Photographer (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is. It's hard to know for sure, but it's not really a problem when viewing the panorama IMO. Diliff (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, maybe a software or lens problem. --The Photographer (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent as usual. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Hverarönd July 2014.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 07:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Hverarönd, also called Hverir or Námaskarð (like the adjacent pass) is an area of ongoing geothermal activity near northern Iceland's Kravla volcano. All by myself --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support this. It's a very austere landscape, and that feeling is strengthened by the overcast sky. This is not the easiest composition to move the eye around, but it's an interesting landform to document. I really consider this picture most interesting at full size, where the greatest detail is visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps sharpened just a bit much, but if that means it got the entire image in focus, I don't mind. Love that perspective. And the subdued light actually works quite well with the earthy colors and landscape here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zinnia elegans, plantation, Alhambra, Granada, Spain.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 21:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Posterization on flowers, more apparent closer to edges. It happens. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to Arion for his choice. I don't see any (significant or not) posterization on flowers, even on edges.--Jebulon (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very confused. I've found so far that I don't have a good eye for posterization unless maybe it's blindingly obvious. Daniel, do you specifically refer to the middle-tone pinkish flowers, which at full size have less differentiation between their petals than the light pink flowers and many of the yellow ones? If so, then I see that, but at full-page size, the picture looks great. I'll give a vote of Support for this picture, but I would love a brief lesson on seeing posterization. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Well, I was talking about the red ones near the edges ... in my experience, if any color is likely to show posterization, it's red. For a better understanding read the article and look at the pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daniel. I've read the article before, but I didn't know there was a Commons category of Posterization. I do see what you're talking about in this photo, and I guess if you really look for it, you can see it at full-page size. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interfere 🤔, is there automatical posterization because of red ? Or is there any posterization in real ? I know what is posterization, I knew the article and the category, but I doubt that this picture could be a good illustration for this "posterization category"...--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just explaining this to Ikan and passing along my personal observations. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine for me. Interesting anyway ! Thanks for comments and interest.--Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope our side discussion of posterization didn't discourage people from voting on this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Strange phenomenon indeed, frequently noticed here, regretfully...--Jebulon (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If this photo gets completely ignored, I'd suggest you resubmit it in a few weeks, and I won't ask for a lesson in posterization then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lynmouth (Devon, UK), Harbour -- 2013 -- 4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:20:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Sailboats
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that there aren't things to like about this—the lighting and the mood, and the way the blue bumpers jump out against the otherwise sedate colors. But I would like it more if, somehow, it was against a stone wall not interrupted two-thirds of the way up the mast by a metal railing (I know, there was probably nothing you could do about this). As it is, in addition to being a discordant element, it also made it harder to ignore the often inevitable loss of focus near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support usualy, I am d´accord with Daniel, but in this case, I will give a weak support. It´s a difficult motif with not really positive colors. Therefore it is ok for me. --Hubertl 13:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. IMO this image will not become a Featured Picture. Please have a look to all the other images. --XRay ^talk 15:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Candelabra and frescos in Galleria Spada (Rome).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 20:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The crop, cutting off part of the fresco (the colorful one; the other one looks good enough to me), is really not ideal. I find this picture good enough to support, and the composition is otherwise good, but I would like this picture a lot more if it had what would seem to me to be a more logical crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a good one, the chandelier* is not sharp, colours are bad, contrast... Plus, the distortion on the edges made this a pretty bad representation of frescos. The *... the name is correct? This is a celling, right? So it is a chandelier not a candelabra. -- RTA 11:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old red beach umbrella.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 14:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Rodrigo.Argenton: Happy Carnival to you! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss some sharpness. --Hubertl 14:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, Zamek Tarnowskich 02.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 18:02:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp all around. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Daniel, and also a fine composition. Congratulations! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 (also i don't like the people) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Linden power plant Elisenstrasse Ihme river Linden-Nord Hannover Germany 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 15:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by ChristianSchd - uploaded by ChristianSchd - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Surprisingly pretty power plant. There's one spot on the left where the trees are disturbingly out of focus, and I'm not sure why that happened, but it can be seen only at full size, so I'm tolerating it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. The spot noted by Ikan seems to be motion blur of the branches and is therefore pretty normal. --Code (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question They were swaying in the wind, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Look at the very long exposure time. --Code (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

311 seconds, if I understand right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Possible posterization of color on buildings forgivable given long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Salagou Lake, Liausson 15.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2016 at 19:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created + uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Washed-out color. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I like the composition a lot, though if you wanted more enthusiasm from me you'd need better weather. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Thennicke. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the mood of this picture makes it wow, and with usual colours of summer it would be "just a QI". --A.Savin 12:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors is the main thing which makes this picture special. -- Pofka (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded a version with with increased vibrance and contraste.
Support Thanks you for the nomination Alex. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a painting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk

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

File:Griechische Nationalbibliothek.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 22:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 22:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. You take such good pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear, clean, nice, geometric, blue, white, sharp, greek.--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Museu da inconfidencia.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 02:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Created and uploaded by Ricardotakamura - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but posterized and not sharp enough. May be tilted CCW too.--XRay ^talk 07:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biesenbachviadukt05 2016-01-17.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 22:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are those white spots in the sky? Are they tiny clouds or frost or snow on the camera's lens? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info There were some clouds. The small white spots (oversharpened in the downscaled images), that is snow that was blown off nearby trees. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that's snow that was in the air while you took the photo? If so, that's completely reasonable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Could be sharper, fixable? I think the spots are definitvely snow, for they are not only in the sky, but everywhere. --Llez (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info In-camera sharpening switched off. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~::*The white spots are still there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutral Per Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Sharpened version of image, using image manipulation software gimp. The white spots, the snowflakes, are often outside the depth of field and also show motion blur. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having trouble seeing the difference between the two versions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Ikan Kekek: Sorry, uploaded a new image version but linked the old one. Rectified. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. The differences between the two versions are subtle, to my eyes. The bridge is pretty, but I'm not fully convinced by the composition, so I'm going to abstain on both versions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eristalinus June 2014-2a.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 22:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info Hoverfy on yellow flower (male Eristalinus taeniops) Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What is that, about 20x magnification on the fly? The bokeh is OK, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added a category for the fly. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera

File:Lagartija de lava de Galápagos (Microlophus albemarlensis), isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 22.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 21:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Exemplar of a male Galápagos lava lizard (Microlophus albemarlensis) in Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The Galápagos lava lizard is a species of lava lizard endemic to the Galápagos Islands. Adults range between 50 and 100 mm long (from snout to vent), exclusing the tail which could double the total length. Poc o² 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The head and most of the body of the lizard are high-resolution, but would you consider cropping out most of the blur in the foreground and background, as well as to the left and right of the lizard, and trying a vertically narrow rectangle that shows only the lizard and the parts of the rock that are thus included? I'm guessing, though, that everyone else will probably find the bokeh fine... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support You should consider cropping a large chunk of the foreground - but I'm perfectly happy with the background's beautiful bokeh --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question I find the bokeh a bit vertiginous in this instance. What makes it beautiful to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a matter of taste, I guess. I simply like the visual impact of this - almost military like - camouflage pattern. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I don't really feel the resemblance, but that's OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support, with a +1 to Martin's crop suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, I agree with your suggestion, too, but I've a problem to carry it out. I'm travelling in an area of South America where the Internet connection (if any) is terrible and I didn't manage to upload a cropped version of this file. Could you do me that big favour? Poc o² 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done please do revert it at once if you don't like it! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose short of FP quality because of out-of-focus (head) and over-exposure (body/tail). Charles (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 17:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh light / overexposed Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian maps, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 14:05:37 (UTC)

An Illustrative Map of Human Life Deduced from passages in Sacred Writ, 1847
This is a folk-art allegorical map based on Matthew 7:13-14 Bible Gateway by the woodcutter Georgin François in 1825.
Overview of the Divine Comedy, by Michelangelo Caetani, 1855.
the Situation of the Terrestrial Paradise, 1700.
Effort to reassure the faithful by locating the site of Paradise, 1665
The Journey of Life, or an Accurate Map of the Roads, Counties, Towns &c. in the Ways to Happiness & Misery. 1775.
The Road From the City of Destruction to the Celestial City

Info Set of images (Maps Category) Rare maps from 1665-1847 that represent the efforts of Christian theology to reassure the faithful by describing and locating the site of Paradise or Hell. }} - uploaded by User:EVDiam - nominated by EVDiam -- EVDiam (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm very reluctant to support any more nominations of featured picture sets until the problem of their not displaying at Commons:Featured pictures is solved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I also think these maps are not similar enough to be a series and should be nominated (and likely featured) individually, although I understand your argument that they share a theme. But they are just too dissimilar in appearance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I Oppose featuring all of these as a set, though I'd be very likely to support them if nominated individually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of FP potential here... not sure whether a set nomination is the best choice though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating! -- Thennicke (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Idem Martin above. Yann (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a set. There are many other "Christian maps", the choice is random, maybe other are better. My advice, chose one you like, restore it carefully, and nominate it separately, you will gain a good success for sure !--Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Jebulon and all. Thank you for your recommendation. I will follow it in case this set will not collect the appropriate votes. This is the first set that I nominate, so I was not sure about the exact definition of "set". My understating is that a set has to be a group of similar images. These images are not similar in terms of aesthetics. However, all of them represent the same thing. They are produced for the same purpose and in fact they are similar in terms of content: These Christian maps represent the effort of Christian theology to describe "heaven" or "hell" for its believers. So, that is why I thought to nominate them as a group. But I understand your point. I was trying to find a page about the definition of the "Set" and examples, but I could not find any. So, I thought just to nominate and see if I understood the right thing. Thanxs EVDiam (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As for me, a set should be complete in some way, and maybe chronologicaly classified, or something. But it is just an opinion, and there are no specific rules. I understand very well the purpose, but is the set "close" ? Well... difficult. Nice pictures anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps

File:2013.06.23.-11-Wesenberg-Rauchschwalbe.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 15:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Hirundinidae_.28Swallows.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good. Beautiful bird, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great job on the bird but I find the grain in the background too distracting. Perhaps it might work better with a tighter crop? Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind a tighter crop, but I do like the fact that I can clearly recognize the background! It looks fine at full-page size and blurred but still quite understandable at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice quality photo, but the distracting background and missing feet make it fall short of FP for me. Charles (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Missing feets might be an issue, but the pleasant color-play of the wooden background and the bird's blue-brown feathers is undeniable. -- Pofka (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annapolis MD Acton Cove.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 10:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Panoramic view of one of the many marinas in Annapolis, Maryland. To the right is St. Mary's Church and School. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a very basic tourist shot. Small objects, sky takes about 60% of the picture. Nothing which reminds FP for me here. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, ok. What I like about the picture is the dominance of blue sky and water with the small green stripe of land inbetween - and the (complimentary) red building complex. There's basically just three dominant colors, four if you count the spotlike white clouds, yachts, and buoys. So the image is rather reduced and, due to its panoramic layout, also wide and opened up. But maybe it just doesn't work... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about this one. My first reaction was to like its restful quality, which reminds me of Johann's photos of Pörtschach, but the cutoff of the trees on the right, where they're at full height and density, is bugging me because it feels like it cuts off the movement of my eyes around the picture frame. I'm wondering what this photo would look like if you had just the amount of tree necessary to show the buildings, even while cutting off part of the graveyard. I'm not positive I'd like that better, but I might. I might or might not support this photo, anyway, but right now, I'm undecided; although I like it, I may like it as a QI rather than a FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Pofka. Even so, that might not have been issue but for the clipping in places—the shadow of the trees, for one, and the window trim on tbe other end. Perhaps a little overzealous in the processing? Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice compositionally, maybe a little bit soft in the corners. --Code (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support after rethinking three times. --Hubertl 23:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Pofka. QI, but nothing special enough to be FP. Yann (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden laurel wreath T HL 04 Kerameikos Athens.png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2016 at 22:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis very delicate and rare golden laurel wreath, made with more than 130 gold leaves during the Hellenistic period. Found in a tomb in the cemetery of the Kerameikos, now on display in the Kerameikos Archaeological Museum in Athens, Greece. This is a .png version, in the file history page, one can find a picture of this jewel with a transparent background, which can be used for any purpose. -- Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful and of obvious high encyclopedic and educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I prefer a centered crop. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Arion. As it is a .png version, only the main subject (the wreath) exists, the background is for presentation. There is no real background (transparency, please see history file page). Actually, you can use the wreath (which is not symmetrical, by the way: centering is difficult) alone.--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to Support. Anyway it's FP for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was this, or some other version, nominated recently? I seem to remember it, and I seem to remember that I !voted support then. Still good. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you are almost right. I nominated a .jpg version, with the original bg. Hubertl asked for another bg, so I decided to withdraw immediately and to rework. It was very hard and difficult, but now you (and "Commons" !) have a picture "without" background. But you did not have the time to vote, as I withdrawed very quickly after the request. Thanks for interest.--Jebulon (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting object, very good quality. --Yann (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Khaled Said Graffiti on Berlin Wall.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 14:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Nora Shalaby - uploaded by File Upload Bot - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Khaled Said is the young man whose killing by the police sparked the sadly short-lived Egyptian Arab Spring. To my eyes, it looks like this photo is a bit fuzzy at full size. In view of the importance of the mural and good Arabic and English labeling of the Arabic writing on it, I'm giving this weak Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: There are 13 copies of this article.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should be. But the criteria for judging whether to feature the picture on Commons go beyond the encyclopedic and historical importance of the subject, though that is an important criterion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly unsharp ("fuzzy", look at the unpainted concrete), and some magenta CA at left.--Jebulon (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche hll Michael und Georg Epitaph Ulrich II von Ernau 26012016 0361.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 13:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given that there is already a Featured picture of the same motif in slightly different light, though without the inscriptions above and below or a part of the floor showing, please explain why this picture is different enough to justify also being featured. Because of the importance of the inscriptions or something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Because this image shows the complete epitaph, whereas the already featured picture only unfolds a cut-out with the central relief stone of Ulrich II. von Ernau. So you folks might get an impression of the whole work. If a specific description might be of a common interest, I can hand it in later at request. By the way, this is one of the finest Renaissance relief works in Carinthia, created by the Italian sculptor Martin Pacobello. Thus according to my opinion it is important enough to be nominated as a whole as well. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the explanation. Parts of the picture are a little fuzzy, but the quality is good enough for me. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting light on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral These shadows on both sides prohibits me from supporting this. Especially right one looks just too disturbing. I like the rest of this picture, so I'll stick with neutral this time. -- Pofka (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southwark Bridge à Londres.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 18:16:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Dinkum - uploaded by Dinkum - nominated by Dinkum (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dinkum (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is not a postcard-style picture, and I enjoy it for that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The lighting and clouds are very good, but the composition and sharpness could be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The standard for London Bridges is pretty high. I'm surprised Diliff hasn't done this one. The sky and the crossing train are bonuses. But the left is cropped (with harms its EV and would only be excusable if part of the bridge was hidden from this viewpoint) and sharpness is quite weak especially off-centre. Compare File:Southwark Bridge, from Millennium Bridge, Aug 2010.jpg which is the result of stitching and is thus much much sharper. It also handles the shadow detail better, and is a wider view that captures the whole bridge. Btw, there's potential here for a great night photo -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I find some of the bridges of London a bit boring, particularly during the day. Some of them are more impressive at night, some of them have nice detailing that isn't very apparent from a distance. Some of them just don't have nice viewpoints. I think Southwark Bridge is one of them that doesn't stand out enough for me during the day. You're right that the linked image is significantly better in sharpness and composition and it is well lit at night. Diliff (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not sharp enough and the view isn't interesting enough for me. Also doesn't show the termination of each end of the bride which I think is important for compositional reasons, and I don't think London's bridges are really at their most aesthetic at low tide. Diliff (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diliff. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traditional Moroccan shoes called "babouches".JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 14:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by User:Pitchoon76 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this a charming, colorful picture whose varied textures are a pleasure for the eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pleasing pattern (I actually thought it was lipsticks or cosmetics at first) well done. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Wagrain Grießenkareck N-Panorama 20160130.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas and Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info Panoramic view northwards from Griessenkareck mountain near Wagrain, federal state of Salzburg. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These kinds of panoramas, when taken clearly in good light and edited well, are often impressive, I find. I'm curious: Are the parallel black rectangles toward the lower right of the picture a set of solar cells or something else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I do not know. But I have no clue what else it could be. Regards, --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could go further left and right for me. --Milseburg (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captures the look of a winter sky in late-afternoon light. I can almost feel a cold breeze against my cheek, and catch myself thinking it'll be time to start getting back down soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for light conditions. I am very curious to know of how many shots this panorama is made of--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Info 9 individual shots (portrait format) from hand with about 50% overlap. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2014.03.29.-08-Mannheim Neckarau Waldpark-Wiesen-Schaumkraut.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 15:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Brassicaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sieht vielversprechend aus. Um das Bild weiter zu verbessern, schlage ich vor, einen Weißabgleich vorzunehmen. Anschließend würde ich versuchen, den Weißpunkt zu verschieben. Falls Du dabei Hilfe benötigst, schick mir einfach eine Email. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Schulenburg: Thanks for your help and pieces of advice. --Hockei (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like everything about this photo except that I wonder about the light. It seems like the sunlight should be brighter, but I wasn't there. Did it really look like that? What were the weather or light conditions like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Waiting to see what happens with Frank's offer. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version. --Hockei (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support better now, way more brillant! --Hubertl 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, this is beautiful now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new version. --Yann (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cologne Germany Bundle-extractor-01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 07:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas - uploaded by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is another photo with a complex form that I enjoy looking at, and like the photo of the factory that we all liked, the photographer has taken a subject that most people wouldn't find beautiful, and by taking it as seriously as a conventionally beautiful motif, has captured a really interesting scene. I would also say that this photo is really only partly about the extractor machine: That and the closer man's back are the most present because they're in the foreground, but to me, what really makes this a special photo is the series of interesting shapes created by the pipes, beams and horizontal planes of different construction in the middleground and background, and the way they work formally with the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Ikan Kekek, for nomination. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're welcome. Thank you for taking the photo! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Olympiastadion Berlin Innenansicht.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 06:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Jan Künzel - uploaded by Jan Künzel - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 06:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 06:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a very good picture. Should Category:Nazi architecture be added to its categories? Any other good categories to add? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: No, it's already in that category by virtue of being in its own subcategory of Category:Olympiapark Berlin, which is a subcat of Category:Nazi architecture in Berlin. I did, however, add Category:Symmetry impressions of buildings Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Such wonderful symmetry! I love the sort of forced perspective as well ... at first scroll I thought it was some circular structure on supports seen from a distance. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in memoriam Jesse Owens...--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 17:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eingangsbereich der Ruhmeshalle, HGM, Wien 0400 1 2 3 4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 20:01:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Entrance area of the Hall of Fame, Museum of Military history, Vienna.
Info all by -- Hubertl 20:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl 20:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Because of the light that day, the entrance is a little glary, but that's a very good picture of a beautiful room. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice perspective. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I am not happy with the crop on top. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very attractive interior. --Code (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Navires à contre jour au large de Portsmouth - img 25039.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 13:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
Info Ships silhouetted at the entrance of Portsmouth (this is my own simple translation from Pmau's description; French speakers welcome to improve it). I stumbled across this image and thought it deserved a nomination; great timing and colours, and I like the factories in the background.
Info created and uploaded by Pmau; nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting: It looks like an old sepia-tinted photo at first, but it's actually a high-quality modern digital image. This isn't necessarily the easiest picture to look around, but I think it deserves a feature out of pure interest and novelty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture, but it seems to be leaning to the right. Should be fixed. --Code (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Code: Fixed -- Thennicke (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not a lot going for this but mood ... but oh what mood! Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive mood, but to dark on the bottom. Not excellent for me. --Milseburg (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to dark on the bottom, no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Milseburg. - Owain Knight (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alchemist-hp. --Karelj (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A escuridão e a luz - Santuário Dom Bosco.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 11:04:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by Arturdiasr - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks magic! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing and pleasant to look at, so I'll Support, but I ask, not knowing this place, whether perspective correction would be appropriate or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Information for @Ikan Kekek: This picture was taken at Santuário Dom Bosco (Dom Bosco Sanctuary). English description and category added. I don't see any need for perspective correction. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very nice composition, but minor noise at the top. May be better with ISO 100. --XRay ^talk 06:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I never saw this colours in this building, this should be a little bit purple:[1], and with more light blues, this picture is oversaturate, and more, this a very poor representation of this stained glass, the most amazing thing about it, is the top, cut off in this picture. -- RTA 09:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{s}}I think, it can make a difference of blue appearance, if you capture this windows from this angle. --Hubertl 09:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment Thanks, Rodrigo --Hubertl 13:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't heed to some details, >>>> see this (forget the green) and see the exif it's clear that the author underexposured badly and on purpose, 1/400 ISO 400, the photo have the top that is important to this photo, but the author decided to removed it, this a bad representation, and knowing that this walls are white, we can see that this is oversaturate photo. Nothing educational here... -- RTA 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the underexposition was done to reduce the overexposition in the glass. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - ArionEstar nope, not even when I raised like hell it blows, see the link. -- RTA 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Rodrigo. A pity ... by itself it is beautiful and calming. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination @Rodrigo.Argenton: Thanks for your explanations. But you consider this one better then? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahja jõe ürgorg.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 04:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by MinuHiiumaa - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is not among the very best pictures of Estonia that I've seen featured on this site, but I do like it quite well enough to support a feature. I like how the light brown reeds in the lower right corner are rhymed by the light brown dirt on the other side of the lake at the middle left. I also find the entire composition harmonious and restful. In fact, the more I look at this composition, the more I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This light brown "dirt" there is Devonian sandstone outcrop from 416-359 million years ago. ;) Kruusamägi (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool!! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – An image of high artistic merit. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a video game foreground. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a nice Wikivoyage banner, trimmed to the right proportions. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! :-) --XRay ^talk 07:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful scene and high quality. Could you please add a description in a second language? --Code (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kruusamägi (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent! --Laitche (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 116-118 HDR.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 01:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Main altar of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. All by me, Poc o² 01:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 01:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll forgive the distortion at the bottom since you had deliberately tilted the camera upward. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hubertl 17:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Archäologisches Nationalmuseum Athen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 22:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 22:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversaturated perhaps? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Please look at the ground, the stairs and the shadow areas. Sky and red facade are OK in my opinion. Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 04:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might just be a consequence of the short exposure and the sun being almost behind the camera. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not properly categorized. Done--Jebulon (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The challenge was : nobody disturbing. Very nice.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Immaculate and impeccable. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Techically very good (maybe a bit oversaturated), huge, empty and interesting light. --C messier (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP.--Karelj (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blad van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) 02.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 06:35:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Fagaceae.
Info Leaf beech (Fagus sylvatica). leaves in autumn created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the texture of the leaf and the wood. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possible to reduce a little bit the bright areas in the leaf? This could improve the quality of the image. -- RTA 12:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think, it´s good as it is. --Hubertl 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool natural colors. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Horse-drawn sleighs 2012 G1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 08:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice motive. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, a very nice picture. You must have really warm winter clothes! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, but IMO the dirty van in background kills it...--Jebulon (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The busy background distracts from the simplicity of the sleigh. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionally there's just too much going on. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Van is the biggest issue here, for me. -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice for me --Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Old and new. --Iotatau (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Owain Knight (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Levoča Old town hall 2015 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 10:00:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Karelj (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very nice composition (except that the people in the foreground could be a bit distracting), but the number of pixels is pretty small, considering that we get a lot of photos that are just as clear but 12 Megapixels and greater. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the distortion that there is can be corrected I would consider a support. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - distortion and foreground --Pudelek (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Self-portrait October 2014-1a.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 22:21:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Self portrait of a photographer on a reflecting ceiling. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing idea. Well implemented. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't see anything worth FP here. Specially low EV. Yann (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Johann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting idea; definitely in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a slight pincushion distortion, and I miss the moustache, but a FP of course (for me) because of the alvesgasparian wow.--Jebulon (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aesthetically meaningless. - Owain Knight (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Yann. --Karelj (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. --Code (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. INeverCry 03:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henk Fortuin 27-03-2003.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 08:49:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ronald Wagenaar - uploaded by EdodeRoo - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Michielverbeek}}|]] -- Michielverbeek (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, I don't find this portrait really impressive. It looks like there's a lot of chromatic aberration in the walls, for example, which look more kaleidoscopic than black in full size. I'm not sure anything is fully sharp, and did he always wear unkempt clothes and have a visible cut on his face? Are his paintings fairly represented in this picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry this does not fit the FP standards, quality wise. Strong chromatic noise in the dark parts, chromatic aberrations, red eye of the subject, harsh flash light, and flash shadows along the subject.--Jebulon (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan Kekek and Jebulon. You don't even have to look at anything but the thumbnail to see that it's nothing more than a snapshot – note that the criteria for Featured Pictures at Commons are different from those at the different language versions of Wikipedia. Might make a decent Valued Image for the scope Henk Fortuin, though. --El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2016 (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: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2016 (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.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huehueteotl, Teotihuacán.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 07:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by لا روسا - uploaded by لا روسا - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2016 (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: Ordinary snapshot, overexposed foreground, the QI label here was wrongly given IMO. Yann (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2016 (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.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:ARG-2016-Aerial-Tierra del Fuego (Ushuaia)–Valle Carbajal 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 04:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13 -- Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aerial view of the Valle Carbajal, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina-- Godot13 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's truly awesome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soaring and exhilarating. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wowed view, with great composition, nice mood and beautiful colors. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great scenery and pretty good quality for an aerial image, but the composition feels a bit unbalanced for me. Cropping about 1/3 of the sky and an equivalent amount on the left would make this much more harmonic, imho (see crop suggestion in image notes). --El Grafo (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 17:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see something from the southern extremes of the Earth; interesting how the austral (?) compares to the boreal here. I support the crop idea but I would take out a little less and leave the peak in. It isn't as sharp as one would like and maybe the highlights on the snow in the distance could be toned down ... but I think the photographer did as well as he could given the situation. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Holy Apostles church ancient agora from Acropolis Athens.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 15:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the church of the Holy Apostles (Ναός Αγίων Αποστόλων Σολάκη), built in year 1000 in the ancient Agora, as seen from the Acropolis. It is situated partly over the Nymphaïon (2nd c.C.E.). The original floor-plan of the church was that of a greek cross, with apses on the four sides, and a narthex on the west-side. Four columns support the dome. The altar and the floor are of marble. The disposition of some tiles on the outer walls show "cubic" decorative patterns of eastern origin. Four building phases are known, from the repairs and reconstructions over the years. Among all the mediaeval monuments known to have existed in the Ancient Agora, it is the only one preserved. It was restored to its original form in 1954-1957. Athens, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A great photo of a great photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very rich composition. I hope no-one complains that it's "too busy". :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Arion. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail; shows the church in its immediate context very well. I love the bird on the tower ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- some times ago, I was on the way to create a special gallery of my QI with incidental birds...--Jebulon (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Slightly low on "wow," and only moderate image quality. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Панорама на Кратово (1).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 12:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. --Laitche (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The greens have an unnatural color. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with User:Laitche and User:King of Hearts. I wasn't there, but it's hard for me to imagine it really looked like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone else. A lot of sloppily unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 03:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amari Agia Anna Fresco 02.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Religion
Info Byzantine fresco in the little church of Agia Anna (Αγία Άννα), Amari Valley, Crete. The frescoes are dated 1225 and the oldest dated frescoes in Crete. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful (though sadly damaged), important fresco, obvious educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to have something like this digitized so well. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Yes, but who is that saint ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andrew of Crete, jugding from his vestment and the fact that in the whole fresco says Α(γιος) ΑΝΔΡΕΑΣ (saint Andrew). PS: Oldest dated, maybe, however not the oldest in Crete. --C messier (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Minoan frescos are older !--Jebulon (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNice details, but the crop is unfortunate IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good digitalisation, yet the fresco is neither well preserved (would you support an equally damaged painting?), nor it is (IMHO and I'm not the only) of high artistic merit, it isn't even the oldest preserved byzantine fresco in Crete (the chapel of Agios Nikolaos in Agios Nikolaos has frescoes with aniconic motifs that date from the iconoclast, 400 years before or more). --C messier (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I consider at least what we're seeing to be of artistic merit, and yes, I surely would support a good picture of a damaged easel painting if it were a good and historically important work. In some cases, such photos are actually really important, because they're the "before" photos, with the "after" photos having been overcleaned by restorers, so if at a future time, they want to restore some of the varnish and pigment they shouldn't have removed, referring to the "before" picture could be invaluable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media#Religion

File:Japanese Pied Wagtail in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 15:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
- Frank, I found the last one, they were gone caused by stock market crash ;-) --Laitche (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bird's in focus. Nice detail. Very painterly in its simplicity. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Japanese pygmy woodpecker in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 13:43:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Animal shot. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Brazilians will get that Arion. :P -- RTA 09:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 16:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, eye in focus, very clear negative space. -- RTA 09:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice combination of texture and tones. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Lacerta agilis female 2014 G2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:24:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The lizard is in focus alright, although the light is a little harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harsh light, but high EV. --Yann (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not very sharp. Charles (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Eriophora transmarina in web at night.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 03:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info Australian garden orb weaver at night. Perhaps I should have opted for a macro lens, but I don't own one, and I think this shot shows more context by including the web (this is a particularly neat example of their webs too). Combination of flash and LED torch only just gave me enough lighting at f/5.6, so I'm quite happy with the result.
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work given the circumstances and equipment. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel's remarks. Obvious educational value, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think you really needed a macro lens for this shot as the distance to subject seems good enough for this sort of composition. What I would say is that although this is clearly a difficult spider/web to photograph given the web only exists at night, the lighting does look extremely harsh and probably a bit overexposed. I prefer this image's lighting. Diliff (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diliff: Thanks for the comment. I have a RAW file for this one, and you were right that there was some clipping on the spider on that particular export. I've reprocessed the image now. (This specimen is a lot less yellow than the one you linked; they vary widely in colour. But as you say, the lighting is harsh.) -- Thennicke (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose disappointed, I look the thumb, and I thought that it would be a good one, and than I opened, :/, not sharp, no details... For educational purpose, the one pointed by David is better. -- RTA 12:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Owain Knight (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Owain Knight: Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per Diliff, The second image is much better - Owain Knight (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leuchtturm in Westerheversand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 05:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Phantom3Pix - uploaded by Phantom3Pix - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 05:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 05:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, but Oppose in favor of the cropped version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong support a fantastic view! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image quality is not as good as we would usually expect it from an FP candidate, but the WOW effect and the educational value are definitely overwhelming here. --Code (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Drone picture ? --The Photographer (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Owain Knight (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info I prefer without people and i crop the white part on the right --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this version, though I also would have been willing to support the original if not faced with this choice. The composition is beautiful and I love the clouds, which remind me of Dutch landscape paintings. I'm somewhat bothered by noise in the background, but perhaps that's from the exhaust from the plane or something, and anyway, I can't see it except at full size, so I'm tolerating it, given the overall beauty of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm more bothered by the CA than the noise, but it's a good enough picture that for me, the wow and EV override the technical defects. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose prefer the original with the people as a scale. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a little tighter and I like it better. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Leuchtturm in Westerheversand crop.jpg

File:Faustulus - Mosaic de Font de Mussa - Museu de Prehistòria de València.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 18:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Prehistory Museum of Valencia - uploaded by TaronjaSatsuma - nominated by TaronjaSatsuma -- TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alongside this blurry picture of a coin, is the only coeval representation of this character held in Commons. All other artworks date from post-ancient times.TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more explanations about the status of the author of this picture, the subsequent copyright, and the license...--Jebulon (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was released by the Museum, a ORTS ticket is on the way.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not only per Jebulon's concerns, but this doesn't seem like the best possible picture of this mosaic. I haven't seen it so I don't know if this the whole thing, although I suspect it isn't. If it isn't, then these odd crops were avoidable. Add that to the barely-eligible size of the image, and what you have is a well-done tourist snaphot, but no better (A QI maybe). Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kippelboy (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Catalan support ? 😊--Jebulon (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a file obtained under a GLAM Amical campaign, yes.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shirley Chisholm.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 14:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Thomas J. O'Halloran - lightly restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's good to see a picture of Shirley Chisholm again, one of my parents' favorite politicians. Good picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Iconic picture of iconic woman with iconic hairstyle (). And just in time for Black History Month in the U.S. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Owain Knight (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Owain Knight: Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because of people like this, civilization is threatened with collapse. I don't think this is "the finest thing" that should be featured. - Owain Knight (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Opposing a feature because you oppose someone's politics? Disgraceful! Your politics don't determine whether someone is historically important. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp B&W, and a powerful and intelligent historical figure. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Chac Mool, Teotihuacán.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2016 at 11:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by لا روسا - uploaded by لا روسا - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but there's heavy CA all around. The composition is quite random and the car on the right is really disturbing. --Code (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2016 (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: Way below FP standard, as per Code. Also overexposed foreground. Yann (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (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.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Assassination of President Lincoln - Currier and Ives 2.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2016 at 08:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Featured picture on 3 Encyclopedias.created by Currier & Ives - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below 2 Mp -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @George Chernilevsky: 2.98 MB! --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 MegaPixels (image resolution), not MegaBytes (file size). Width x height (in pixels). -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:El verde en mi país es mas bonito.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2016 at 18:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by GleyderKarina - uploaded by GleyderKarina - nominated by Oscar . -- Oscar_. (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Oscar_. (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, far no FP-Quality. Too noisy though a wonderful motif.--Hubertl 19:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hubertl; also the lizard's head/upper body seems to be in the dark compared to its arm. INeverCry 20:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too noisy and over-saturated. I suggest avoiding the "Vivid" setting on the camera. -- Colin (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2016 (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: of the reasons people posted above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2016 (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.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Una cena en Joyuda, Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2016 at 10:17:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Cryo Mariena - uploaded by Caballero1967 - nominated by Caballero1967 -- Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 10:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 10:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question - Pretty picture, but I'm undecided because it is not super-sharp. But what natural phenomenon is being displayed, and is that Venus or Jupiter in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info It is the capture of the after-sunset moment from a parallactic angle of 90°, which can only occur two times a year and solely in regions within the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn. At this instant, which lasts here about 22 mins, atmospheric refractions displace the ubiquitous blue, reveal the imposing Venus and give way to a gamma of hues hidden at other times but in twilights. Venus stands alone because Mars is dimmer from this angle, and Jupiter only nears Venus the closest in September. Two minutes earlier, and the image would have appeared even sharper, but it could have missed Venus. -- Caballero1967 19:35, 12 February 2016‎

Neutral Until you straighten the horizon. It´s flooding the arctic sea right now! --Hubertl 21:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sloping horizon. Not sharp. The pier isn't quite working the way it should on a photo like this. I'm not convinced the sky is that unusual. Sunsets are pretty, but there's nothing photographically or artistically special here. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks! The new one above is the straightest I could get from the various applications I tried. Please, consider two issues. First, the dock's slight orientation south, contingent on the beach's position, causes an inverse slim tilting illusion of the horizon. To complicate perspective even further, the slightly cloudy north erases the horizon's line, thus magnifying the illusion. Take a look at the patterned pic below. Cheers, --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 22:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still unsharp, and that light on the dock looks a little unnatural and distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks. Took your suggestions in and tried improving it. Let me know, please. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 05:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This has gone from 4mb to 178kb somehow, and is now a run of the mill web-res sunset. The original had no wow factor either really, so not a big loss, but how do you cut 75% off of an image's size with a simple rotation of a couple degrees, then nearly quarter it again with a crop and some strange light adjustments? Next it'll be a 50kb thumb... INeverCry 07:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9185.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 20:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info ceiling work at the choir, Jesuit Church, Vienna.
Info all by -- Hubertl 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl 20:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm bugged by the crop that shows just a bit of golden color. I'll Support, anyway, though, because it is a really good photo and composition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light and colors. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is the high altar skewed in reality? --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hm, I don´t know really, I should go there again and have a look. --Hubertl 15:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I straightened the lines partly, Uoaei1 Thanks for the hint. --Hubertl 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Equus zebra hartmannae - Etosha 2015.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 08:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 14:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good and nice picture of a zebra, but nothing outstanding for FP IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As far as zebra pictures go, I've seen worse and ... really, I like the way the animal stands out and the way the overall color scheme works to make it stand out. Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Homalocantha zamboi.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 20:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created and uploaded by Llez - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It bugs me that I can't see this picture at full size because it "contains errors", but based on looking at the 1280x916 version, this is a good composition and the shells are beautiful, so I feel this is quite deserving of a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So crisp ... And they almost look like some weird snack. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Kõnnu Suursoo. 10.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 04:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Aleksandr Abrosimov - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is another one that's grown on me. At first, I doubted I'd vote to support this photo, and if you zoom to full size, it looks like the details are blurred by the golden sun. But look at it at full-page size and move your eyes around it, and you may find that it's a great picture. One question, though: Is the sun rising or setting? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is taken after sunrise (based on image data: July 16th, 5:02 AM). Sun rises around 04:33 at that day there. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours --Llez (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria Carolina of Austria in the Palace of Caserta.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 21:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why so dark? -- RTA 11:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me isn't dark,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Livio this is not a question of taste, you didn't use the full spectrum of colours, and have a lack of whites and blacks.-- RTA

Support --Hubertl 14:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colors. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why Abstain Livioandronico? --Famberhorst (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

For me, and for the histogram it's dark, and lack of whites and blacks. Ans was to blue to me, so:

-- RTA 09:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for @Rodrigo.Argenton: OK, but I prefer to overwriting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)--[reply]
- Arion, this is not my paper, as you can see [2], the author have his own mind, and always have this posture (and in my opinion he thinks I take things in a personal matters as others), so I will not change his version. -- RTA 10:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyway, I Support too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white balance might be better (not sure), but this looks overexposed. Yann (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See Livio the difference? This is only a opinion based in believe (and probably in dirt political matter), not in fact, the fact is that it's not overexposed, and you just need a software that generate histogram to know it: see. -- RTA 18:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Which one of these versions looks more similar to the real-life appearance of this ceiling? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

The chosen alternative is: File:Maria Carolina of Austria in the Palace of Caserta.jpg

File:Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) male Rio Negro 2.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 06:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on my reading of Category:Panthera onca, there are currently only 2 Featured Pictures of jaguars - one of which is a head shot, and the other, a body picture far inferior to this one and also taken at a zoo. The entire animal is quite sharp in this picture, and even at full size, the entire picture is quite easily viewable, without bokeh that blurs anything anywhere close to unrecognizably. At full-page size, the entire composition is clearly in view, with a foreground, middleground and background - a very good composition, too, in my opinion - showing the jaguar in its habitat. I'd love to see more wildlife pictures like this, and I'll be surprised if anyone votes to oppose featuring this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect snapshot. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know you mean that comment positively, but to me, this picture is way more than just a snapshot. Look at that composition! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support he's yawning for the camera. Charles (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here, kitty, kitty, kitty. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Charlesjsharp: Thanks for your contribution to the Brazilian fauna. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportEVDiam (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support An animal-in-environment picture that works as an FP. The pose can't be beat ("Oh my, grandma, what large teeth you have!"), the animal's in focus, and while there are some spots in the background where the limitations of such a small image are evident they are so small as to not matter. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if you did slag off my jaguar! :D -- KTC (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather small. Is this a crop? --Code (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this image is cropped. Taken from a small boat with 400mm lens on a monopod. The guides do not like to get too close. As a result, I had around 5 minutes to observe and photograph - waiting for him to yawn! Charles (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Lift Seceda Gherdëina.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 10:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Wolfgang Moroder - nominated by Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another sublime photo by Wolfgang Moroder. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A short step or rotation to the left, maybe ? The crop...--Jebulon (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I was thinking of what someone might object to, the crop on the left side where the chairlift is occurred to me. My feeling is that in order to have an entire post near the left side of his image without having no space between it and the edge of the picture frame, he probably had to cut off part of its mechanism. Is that what you're seeing, or is it something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for answering, Wolfgang. Yes, the cropped mechanism is my main concern.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Here I am. More of that "mechanism" on the left would be very distracting imo --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bel bianco --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong support Well-composed, excellent quality, gorgeous atmosphere. A desired Hollyday scenery and a POFY finalist for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You Brazilian ! I mean: that's a common scenery in our old Europe...--Jebulon (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sea of clouds has wow all by itself, great perspective, and per Ikan there was really no way to crop on the left that would have not been at least slightly awkward. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Pugilist (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:MANNapoli 9058 couple painting.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 09:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by an unknown pompeian painter, the rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remain in the antique ages, with this nice, beautiful, and interesting fresco from a house in Pompeii, in the 4th style, depicting a pair of middle-class Pompeian, certainly husband and wife. It was placed on the back wall of the house, so as to be visible to anyone who transited to the atrium. It shows the baker Terentius Neo, as revealed by the engraved inscription inside the house, and not, as has been by mistake felt for a long time, Paquius Proculus, whose name appears in an electoral inscription painted on an outside wall. The two persons are portrayed as wealthy refined, cultured and fashionable: the woman is wearing a red robe, a pearl necklace with pendant in gold and pearls in the ears, has the typical Nero-era hairstyle (her hair divided by a parted in the middle and tied back, except for tight curls that fall on the forehead), and flaunts culture holding a diptych of wax tablets and a stylus, the same attitude of the so-called "Sappho fresco". The baker wears the toga, that indicates the dignity of magistratuus, and clearly highlights the rotulus (the document certifying his social rank) . All of this is a bit "too much". The current interpretation is that, despite everything, the facial features, made by the author with deliberate loyalty, betray the provincial origin of two upstarts, probably of Samnite origin who, once conquered the economic well-being, aspire to hide their humble beginnings and become a full right in polite society. Found in Pompeii, ca.79 CE, now on display in the National Archaeological Museum of Naples, Italy.-- Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful painting, excellent documentation and photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support-EVDiam (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Owain Knight (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be the best version of this that we have. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thank you, I don't know, but I'm sure it is better than the one of the museum site !, which does not even show their own restorations !--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:BD Bacatá en construcción.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 13:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by mrtony77 - uploaded by mrtony77 - nominated by mrtony77 -- mrtony77 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mrtony77 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need a category mrtony77 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure that worked right, but I added the category. --mrtony77 (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overprocessed (CA visible on building's roofline) and even if it weren't there's just too much going on here for the intended perspective to work. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quite honestly, I find nothing special about this photo. It's got a weird angle and a couple of random-seeming crops, and the netting is very distracting in the context of this composition. I'm sorry; I know I may sound mean, and I feel a little like a jerk giving this feedback, but that's the way I feel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 03:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, far away from fulfilling any quality standards. Even not QI IMO. --Hubertl 11:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJust to clarify some points from the comments above, there was no processing nor cropping in this image. It is the original image without modification. It is the only image of the construction of history making building from that angle, the corner of the very block where it is being built.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Kleinkirchheim St Oswald Kirchweg 16 Pfarrkirche hl Oswald Tuerbeschlag 17092015 7572.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 08:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent "eye", as usual.--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Details are important, and the colors clear. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, St.-Jakobus-Kirche -- 2015 -- 5587.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 07:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Books
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting idea, well done. I can almost smell them. Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent perspective. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some pincushion distortion right and left to be corrected.--Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. I'll fix it within the next days. --XRay ^talk 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed It's fixed now. --XRay ^talk 17:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Far much better, thanks. I like this kind of pictures very much ("different"), especially because I imagine you when you decided to shot this...--Jebulon (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the value of this picture? Nothing particularly interesting. - Owain Knight (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A photo designed to annoy the OC(P)D in me and others! -- KTC (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but nothing special enough to be FP. Yann (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gesù e Maria (Rome) - Intern.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 10:54:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A technically very good photo. HDR can be an advantage. But you can also overdo. I do not like the photos that look as if they had fallen into a paint pot. Je-str (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the colours,nothing is "over". Anyway thanks for opinion --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moderated support Nice colors, but overexposed windows. Anyway, beautiful interior and FP for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to Support, but with the same caveat Arion gave above. I wonder how a picture with a slightly shorter exposure would look, because it's not just the windows themselves but some surrounding areas that are overexposed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but, what stuff are the craftsmen smoking? --Hubertl 23:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I changed to neutral, because I smoked some good stuff yesterday ;-), now I´m sober. It´s oversaturated IMO. Maybe you can change it, the rest doesn´t bother me so much. --Hubertl 21:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long the exposure may have been, but the ringing around the lights and statues on the sides doesn't have to be there. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I agree with opposers. + oversharpening white lines.--Jebulon (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, not natural colors. --Karelj (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madrid May 2014-8a.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 16:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Basílica de San Francisco el Grande. Madrid. Ceiling of the main chapel. It was painted in the last decade of the 19th centurt by José Marcelo Contreras. This is one of a series of photos I took of the ceiling of the Basílica. Without a top quality camera it wouldn't have been possible to use such high ISO settings and still obtain this much detail. Failed first nomination is here. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've been spoiled by church interiors that are pinpoint clear throughout, and this is clear on the ceiling but not as clear on the walls. However, it's good enough for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as others. --Hubertl 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Vineyards in Prades-sur-Vernazobre 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely composed, beautiful landscape. France is beautiful.--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 23:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Under cloudy sky, reveals some features that might not have been visible in sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me this has no "wow." The composition is rather dull, and while grey skies are good for bringing out delicate textures or vibrant colors that would be lost under harsh sunlight, here I don't think it works. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This light is very boring, this grass in foreground don't add to the photo, also the sky, the sky is very dull, and occupy more than 35% of the photo...-- RTA 09:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I keep searching for something outstanding in this motif. --Milseburg (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I don't see something of "wow". Simply and uninteresting landscape with dull light for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Christian, where is your great sensitivity of composition. --Laitche (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colors, details, weather are ok IMO but apparently lack of movement in the image to generate enthousiasm...Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like --Laitche (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeLacking in composition and WoW. Also hard to determine the exact subject. --Laveol (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Vineyards_in_Prades-sur-Vernazobre_02.jpg

File:CDU Wahlkampfplakat - kaspl010.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2016 at 09:18:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Christlich-Demokratische-Union Deutschlands (CDU) - uploaded by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung - nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"All Marxist paths lead to Moscow! Therefore CDU" - This campaign poster, created for the West German federal elections of 1953, certainly ranks among Germany's most iconic political posters of the postwar period. It highlights Konrad Adenauer's stern anticommunist course, here directly aimed at the Social Democrats, then the leading party of the parliamentary opposition.

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support- EVDiam (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is the white scuffing part of the original poster design? INeverCry 05:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info to my knowledge it is --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I can't fault you for a bad choice made by the designers. Funny that Marx himself was anti-Russian... INeverCry 07:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{Neutral}} for a poster, the pixel size is too small for me.--Hubertl 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Fixed Hubertl, Du hattest recht, da ging noch mehr... ;-) --KAS-ACDP (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok now for me! --Hubertl 11:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking forward for more high res material from KAS-ACDP. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Christoph. Our general online strategy aims at providing as much content as possible under free licenses. We've already uploaded thousands of images - and thousands more will follow. As far as resolution is concerned: for virtually all online based purposes (including wikipedias), the resolution we provide here is more than sufficient. If someone might need more, e.g. real hi-res, we're always absolutely willing to help out, but we'd appreciate to be contacted directly. As an institutional archive we need to stay in touch with our users, especially when it comes to projects like major book publications. This doesn't mean that there are no exceptions from this rule. Is there any other poster you're specifically interested in? --KAS-ACDP (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Ethel Franklin Betts, Save the Survivors, 1918 Cornell CUL PJM 2029 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 14:53:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info Save the Survivors - 3,950,000 Starving PeopleWhere the Victims Are: Campaign for $30,000,000, 1918:Poster from the special campaign of the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief (renamed by 1916 the American Committee for Relief in the Near East, which worked energetically throughout the war to raise funds and provide relief.- uploaded by EVDiam - nominated by User:EVDiam -- EVDiam (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important document in excellent condition and very important to share widely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Given that it's a two-dimensional image without any photographic elements, have we thought about having a .png version so there's no compression loss, and to take up less memory? Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps

File:Lupinus polyphyllus UA 2015 G5.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2016 at 11:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would cut left.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 02:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little noisy in the back, but forgivably so. Looks almost like the plants are posing for a group picture. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Sacsayhuamán, Cusco, Perú, 2015-07-31, DD 28-30 PAN.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2016 at 03:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info View of Saksaywaman, a citadel on the northern outskirts of the city of en:Cusco, historic capital of the Inca Empire, today Peru. The first sections of the citadel were first built by the Killke culture about 1100 and expanded by the Inca from the 13th century. The dry stone walls are composed of huge stones, which boulders are carefully cut by workers to fit them together extremely tightly without mortar. All by me, Poc o² 03:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Poc o² 03:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this, but I really wish it went a little further to the right, so that the stones didn't have to be cut off, if possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan Kekek, I've uploaded a new version with a more generous crop on the right. Poc o² 11:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you. I do think that improves the photo some. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those things that needs to be done as a panorama. Good work. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Panoramic, colorful, sharp, and historically valuable. Thanks! --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Victor Hugo by Étienne Carjat 1876 - full.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 22:48:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Étienne Carjat - uploaded & nominated by Scewing
Support -- Scewing (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure about this one. It's a small file for a featured picture nomination, and it's apparent even at thumbnail size that M. Hugo's right side (to the viewer's left) is blurry. If that's in the original photo and this file is faithful to that photo, we should probably approve featuring it, because of the author's importance and his compelling facial expression, but I think I'll leave that judgment up to others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, le voilà! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~{o}~~ No improvements since the previous nomination. I guess this is the Bonhams version, a downsampled copy of the Carjat Gallica's version, which has a higher size. Good restoration though--Jebulon (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info Actually, I spent several hours restoring it since the previous nomination. Per your suggestion, I went through and eliminated literally thousands of white spots. Previous entry was this, current entry is this. Scewing (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also wanted to point out that, as you correctly guessed, this image is a restoration of the woodburytype sold by Bonham's auction house in 2011. The Bonham's woodburytype is not a downsampled copy of the woodburytype owned by BNF's Gallica, they are two separate woodburytypes of the same image. I chose to restore the Bonham's version, despite it's smaller scan size, because in my opinion the Bonham's woodburytype has deteriorated less in its 140 year history compared to the Gallica version. The detail of Victor Hugo's eyes and face were much cleaner in the Bonham's version in my opinion, so I decided to restore that one. BTW, I'm a big fan of all your images! Keep up the good work. Scewing (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very convincing, opposition removed, support instead. Bon appétit, messieurs, ô ministres intègres, conseillers vertueux !--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:2015.08.19.-01-Mannheim Vogelstang--Hauhechel-Blaeuling-Maennchen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2016 at 15:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Lycaenidae_.28Gossamer-winged_butterflies.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's an impressive closeup, and I'm OK with the bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 02:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support splendid --Atudu (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahhhhh ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Lycaenidae_.28Gossamer-winged_butterflies.29

File:Grant E., Hamilton, Their New Jerusalem, 1892 Cornell CUL PJM 1111 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2016 at 14:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
Info Grant E., Hamilton, Their New Jerusalem, 1892: An anti-semitic cartoon from Judge Magazine.- uploaded by EVDiam - nominated by EVDiam -- EVDiam (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The restoration could be better. The large smudge under the title at top, the fold lines, the discoloration at bottom, and the numerous black spots could be cleaned up. INeverCry 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I miss a bit sharpness, but it´s ok. It´s a question, how much an restoring intervention should go. I prefer as little as possible. --Hubertl 10:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at it closer: crisp and clear! And very telling of a key period, despite of... --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

File:Lüdinghausen, Flugplatz Borkenberge, PKW auf dem Parkplatz -- 2014 -- 0079.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 05:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At first, I glanced at it and thought "Why should this be featured?" Then I looked through the composition and understood. Really good photographers can see the beauty and interest in objects and scenes others pass by without noticing. Very good composition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sun reflection a little distracting, but still nice. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden Bosnian Lily: Please give me a reason for your contra. It's not just voting, a review or reason is usual especially for a contra. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 15:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl 17:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of a picture I took of a BMW's tire and hubcap a few days ago that might (I hope) eventually turn up here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything special in this. Sorry. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pferdskopf (Rhön) im Winter 2016.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2016 at 11:42:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 17:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, colors, mood. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. Trivial composition, slight vignetting, a bit too much foreground. A good QI though.--Jebulon (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks washed out to me, and the composition should be wider. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I agree with Jebulon, though also with Martin and Laitche. This is a clear photo, and I do agree with Martin and Laitche that it has a nice mood, but I don't find the composition great. I'm feeling neutral; I were really pushed, I might lean toward the "QI but not FP" side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Owain Knight (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Karelj (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. INeverCry 03:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ca. 10-15% less foreground and 30-50% moore place on right: that will be a good composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radha and Krishna in the boat of love - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 23:04:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Unknown artist / Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution of a traditional miniature from the Kishengarh school of paintings from Rajasthan. Radha Krishna are collectively known within Hinduism as the combination of both the feminine as well as the masculine aspects of God. See Radha Krishna for the details. -- Yann (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to vote for this picture, but I find the documentation insufficient. A date or at least approximate date and, so far as is known, place of composition should be mentioned in the description. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As it concerns Radha and Krishna, it cannot be a physical place on earth, but it is meant to be a mystical one, maybe Shangri-La? So I imagine, the picture expresses more a state of the soul. Like a dreamland. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not asking what place is depicted; I'm asking when and where it was painted. That, or at least as near as we can tell, should be included in the documentation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, updated from GAP. Yann (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and Support. I still have a question, though: It looks like there is writing in Urdu or another Arabic-based language on the bottom of the painting. Do you have any idea why, given that this is a pointedly Hindu religious subject? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure (I don't read Urdu), but Urdu was the lingua franca for scholars in India until the 1920s (or even the 1940s?). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl 09:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Owain Knight (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Owain Knight: Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The figures are too small in the overall composition. - Owain Knight (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Owain Knight: we can't change it. This is a 360 years old work. Yann (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Yann, I don't expect you can change it. The question is whether it should be featured? You mean that all older works have small figures that make them almost unrecognizable? - Owain Knight (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Owain Knight: Did you realize that this is file nearly 700 megapixels? This is more than 20 times the picture size of an average camera. You can very well recognize them. Yann (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Yann And how many people are going to click that? The picture is going to be featured on multiple Wikipedias in smaller version than here that we vote on. - Owain Knight (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Owain Knight: This is telling. The simple fact that you didn't review this in its original resolution invalidate your vote. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Yann, how does it invalidate my vote - my argument is that the figures are too small in the overall composition, which makes the picture unsuitable for display as feature picture. Maybe if you print it and display it in a large gallery, the figures would be recognizable, but here it is not the case. - Owain Knight (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The argument for the vote is that the figures are too small in the overall composition. You did not dispute that, said you cannot change it and offered the excuse that it is an old picture. Now you say that non-clicking on the full size of a picture invalidates one's vote. How does that make sense? This is a public organization with public responsibility - in the case of FP, responsibility to the millions that see them when they are made Picture of the Day, and this should be primary motivation when voting for a candidate. - Owain Knight (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Reflexos do Planalto.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 14:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Jonas Richter - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting architecture and a nice mood. Could you please add an English description? --Code (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support because small and DoF can be better but nice compotions and colours --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice photo. I would have loved for the top of that building not to have been cut off, but I wasn't the one taking the photo. By the way, it's easy enough for me to understand that this building is the seat of the Brazilian Federal Executive. It's the second sentence that's not as easy for me to make out without running some words through a translator or dictionary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Information for @Code and Ikan Kekek: English description and category added. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, but you translated the part whose meaning was evident to me. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ikan Kekek the second part it's just a dramatic text about the photo (it was difficult to translate with the same intensity): "Photo clicked at dusk in September day, during the highest point of the dry season, the setting sun provides special colours to the monument." Nothing important, this kind of dramatic description is quite normal in photo contests promote by this Brazilian "group", the lack of orientation create this type of description. This is a "good" one, normally are "Think about some x, reflecting in the power of my photo...". -- RTA 09:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special architecture. Great colors. Excellent quality. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure. Nice composition. The resolution is low for this kind of image, DoF small. IMO it's sharp in the front and not sharp enough in the back. f/6.3 is too small for this kind of image. --XRay ^talk 05:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose something is missing, have a lack of wow here. The build size is compromised by the composition, as this is just a small portion of the building, giving the impression of away smaller building, the water is a little bit distracting a longer exposure would be better, and the most impressive of this portion of the building is the curves that are not highlighted in this photo, it's too far, and a little bit lost in the trees. -- RTA 09:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral like XRay. Very good composition, but quite small for a static subject. Quality is OK, but the sky is not interesting. Yann (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support It could be better, but because of the limitations of the camera used and my own partiality to images of modernist buildings reflected in water I will let that go. I also completed the English description and added the golden-hour category it supports (not that it wasn't obvious from the image, anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel something like RTA. The compo does not work for me (the foor structure at left), and the whole is too yellow. Not a FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per XRay. --Laitche (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wendell Phillips by Brady.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2016 at 22:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Mathew Brady, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least 150 years old... -- Yann (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golden Bosnian Lily: Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK tu pars de loin, mais tu peux faire plus...😉--Jebulon (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon C'est à dire ? Yann (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yann: Il y a encore des tachouilles que tu peux nettoyer, non ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Il faut savoir s'arrêter. Je me suis demandé jusqu'où fallait-il retoucher le cadre. Passé ce point le mieux serait de supprimer tout l'extérieur... Yann (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - C'est dedans qu'il y a des choses à améliorer, je trouve.--Jebulon (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice job restoring it! Excellent historical person to remember. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Личинка белокрылки.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2016 at 11:47:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created and uploaded by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the sharp view of a micro image, and the transparency too. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great focus stack! -- Scewing (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 217-219 HDR.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 02:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View during the blue hour of the church and Monastery of St. Francis, Quito, Ecuador. The Roman Catholic temple, finalized in the 16th-century, is the largest architetural ensemble among the historical structures of colonial Latin America. The church is also featured by the mixture of different architecture styles as its construction took 150 years. All by me, Poc o² 02:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 02:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Wonderfully dramatic, and I support the compromises you made for the overall effect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a little bit oversaturated, but still... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks somehow distorted, and I am not convinced by the composition. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uoaei1: the roof on the left is (for real) not paralel to the roof on the right. Poc o² 22:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ghosts on the stairs should (easily) be cloned out...--Jebulon (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulonː all ghosts are now removed Poc o² 11:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Poco. I still hesitate due to the parallel.--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isbjerget.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2016 at 10:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you really wanted to capture? The funny but coincidently cloud formation or the architecture of the houses? The composition is quite strange to me --Hubertl 14:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I similarly question this composition. I like the buildings but would recommend for you to take a photo with a plainer sky or one with clouds higher above the buildings, because the buildings are quite complex in terms of form and the placement of the cloud feels distracting, rather than enriching. By the way, this is probably the first time I've posted something that could be interpreted as a "too busy" remark, but I don't think the picture is really overly complex; it's more a question of the placement of the cloud, relative to the buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check your "permissions" template. You require the CC BY-SA 4.0 to be mentioned but the picture is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. --Code (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Code THX - I will correct it. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I very much like this image, but there's the issue of the possible crop off the top as well as the licensing has not been addressed as of this writing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Licensing is now fixed it is under CC BY-SA 3.0. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:W Hotel DC.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 12:50:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Interior of the Hotel Washington (Washington, D.C.). Created by Jeffrey Totaro - originally uploaded by en:User:Hrboe - nominated by Storkk --Storkk (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Storkk (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Busy but inevitable. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For a hotel lobby, that's not busy, as there are no guests in the picture! :-) But it has some compositional richness, and I like the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crops at the top (chandelier) and bottom left (table and chair) are quite awkward. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Owain Knight (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I said before, more hotel lobbies please. Crop is a little awkward, but I can see how that might have been the lesser of two evils. Very well composed and done for a long exposure indoors with people in the background. Love the arcade ... not something you'd expect to see in a hotel lobby. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, sharp, and good angle, but per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. INeverCry 03:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the crop is unfavorable. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the colors and very good quality but unattractive composition since too busy for me. --Laitche (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems to be very hard for a hotel lobby interior pic to get approved for a feature, because there are always quite a few people who will say that the composition is "too busy" (an argument I really hate) or that some crop is less than ideal (related to the "busyness", I believe, since it has to be cropped somewhere, so inevitably, something in a multifaceted interior is cut off). Do we really want to discourage people from nominating hotel interior pics? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I understand the opposers' points, and my first nomination failing (if it does) will not discourage me. I don't think that any specific category of FP should get special treatment simply to encourage more of them, and people should vote according to their own internal criteria. It's one of the best hotel interiors I've seen on Commons, but I have to acknowledge that IMO it's not among the very top of Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors. Storkk (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:תל מגידו.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 09:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Aerial view of Tel Megiddo, archaeological site in Israel. Created and uploaded by AVRAMGR. -- Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems overprocessed to me. --Hubertl 09:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A unique picture - shows the place in the rare angle, at least in comparison to other pictures we have in Wikimedia projects. Ldorfman (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A unique view should earn Valued Image status, but I question whether this is really featurable. You're familiar with this place; could you please tell us whether the vegetation we see in the near right and center really looks like that? And the other thing is that a lot of the picture is hazy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced by image quality. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaotic composition makes it hard to focus on subject; off colors on top of hill and immediately behind. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Owain Knight (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Owain Knight: Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per Daniel. - Owain Knight (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 03:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Šopsko kolo, XVIII Duna.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 20:39:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the subject matter, but I'm opposing this because it's not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however, look the weather conditions it's 7 pm (Budapest time and 1:30pm Venezuela time) and dancing!, it's not a building and you can't apply the same rule --The Photographer (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the challenge, but we're talking about a Featured Picture here. I think it should be more outstanding to be featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support per last time. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - This was nominated before? When? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Budapest culture.jpg -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose September 18, 2013. No significant changes. Per Ikan Kekek.--Jebulon (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Owain Knight (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Drzewianin (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vodnokon4e (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, sorry. --Code (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan & others. INeverCry 03:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see any reason for renomination. Not special enough to rise above good tourist photo. -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Think the improvement is visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caballero1967 (talk • contribs)
Support --Stanqo (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-Laurent-de-Belzagot 16 Paysage avec étang 2013.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 20:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by JLPC - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The picture is sharp and the countryside is pleasant, but I question the composition. For example, I don't like the way the road at the extreme right is cut off - it seems random to me. There might be a way to get a fine composition out of this with some other crop, but I'll leave that to you. As it is, I don't feel that it's an outstanding work that I can support featuring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "wow" on this is borderline for me, and if it were one of those super detailed panoramas I would be OK with it, but there is visible unsharpness at 100% on a 20 MP image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan; I don't find the composition stimulating enough. It feels like one of those pictures that felt awesome when you took it but, when you look at later, is more like "oh". I guess the horizon line is too close to flat for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's really a nice picture and has high quality but it's somehow not extraordinary enough to become FP, I'm afraid. --Code (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan & KoH. INeverCry 03:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is one of those pics that soothes the hear. Perhaps the various greens with the blue clear sky. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 06:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Locomotive 2M62-1145 2013 G1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 06:17:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think I can support this picture for a feature, because there's so much haze in the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 06:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, certainly a QI, but no "wow" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI is full of train pictures like this. Not special enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014.03.09.-23-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Fruehlings-Scharbockskraut.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 16:34:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Ranunculaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not the entire flower is in focus, but I like this picture, anyway. Nice bokeh, and it's impressive that you have such an extreme closeup of the flower that we see the individual stamens with such clarity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Building in Paulista Avenue 09.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2016 at 13:37:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar style. ;) -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Depressing architecture. Owain Knight (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Owain Knight: It's a typical facade of buildings in downtown São Paulo, the largest city in Brazil. So, what's to be expected? This architecture is very common. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost abstract in its form and symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes indeed. It reminds me of Mondrian. It's great how the air conditioners provide a rhythm to the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl 23:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting to see that no one opened the image... its not sharp, but as I'm prohibited to oppose this volunteer, it's just a thought. And Arion, it's not, this is 70s, and not that commons architecture specially in centre that are normally older building. -- RTA 22:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where do you get off making such a bizarre claim? I certainly did look at the image at full size, as I assume most of the reviewers did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at full size and seeing that no one complained about the sharpness... -- RTA 17:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this kind of effectively abstract composition, a very slight haziness at full size is of no great importance to me, and I suppose probably not to most others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daurian redstart (female) in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016 II.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2016 at 02:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 02:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 06:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice bokeh. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tack-sharp. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Nice bokeh. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is real lovely --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Little grebe in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2016 at 02:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 02:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reverential. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - incredible shot, right down to the water droplets on the grebe's back. Wow - the detail. Atsme 📞 14:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Dülmen, Umland -- 2014 -- 10.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2016 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info I very much like the mood. Created and uploaded by XRay - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support @XRay: Is there any way you could remove the jet trail at top left? This would be even better without that. INeverCry 08:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry Thanks for your advice. Jet trail and bird (on the right) removed - and a better resolution. Thanks to Code for nominating! :-) --XRay ^talk 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful light. --Laitche (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely mood. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Ariza, Zaragoza, España, 2015-12-29, DD 102.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2016 at 12:46:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smial (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The church of St Peter, patron saint of Ariza, is of Herrerian style and was built in 1620. Poc o² 12:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Smial for digging this original FPC out! Poc o² 12:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome photograph. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As Johann said. I love all those diagonals, the tiles, etc., etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the tones and textures. Could be sharper, though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, pretty, and sharp! --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 16:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a bit tight crop on the bottom. --Laitche (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Billy Strayhorn, New York, N.Y., between 1946 and 1948 (William P. Gottlieb 08211).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2016 at 17:39:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by William P. Gottlieb - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For fun, compare the commercially sold restoration which requires, so far as I can tell, an extreme over sharpening to get anything like the effect seen on the hands, and also completely throws out all detail in the darker areas. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Also excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superior to the Getty version, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 7... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Even though it is B&W, the details are impressive! --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodgers, 1954.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2016 at 17:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Bob Sandberg - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support At 3599 resolution you can almost see his pimples, I mean, if he had one (but he did not in this pic). Great job! --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 19:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent pose. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another iconic photo of an iconic African American for Black History Month. Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support EVDiam (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Ares Tower Vienna from SW on 2015-07-10.png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2016 at 22:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Ares Tower Vienna from SW, created by Rftblr - uploaded by Rftblr - nominated by -- Hubertl 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imposing building. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk)
Support - Good portrait of a building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure. The quality is very good but I think the light situation is not as good as I would expect it from a FP. Also, the composition is more or less boring. I'll take another look in the next days. --Code (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I find the composition alright, because it's the one big building with its supporting cast, and to my eyes, the smaller buildings relate formally to the big one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose high quality, but it lacks something that would make me go "Wow!". Sorry, but that's what QI is for, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough for me. A little cooler on the WB than I'd have it, but that's understandable given the predominant blue and green tones, especially on the top. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting cube! --Laitche (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing special in this type of architecture. - Owain Knight (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect angle, perfect picture. The architecture is actually quite unique. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 06:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, Hafen, Osmo-Hallen -- 2015 -- 5943.jpg, withdrawn, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 17:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My first thought was to oppose a feature, but instead of opposing right away, please explain why you consider this special enough to feature. Thanks a lot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company no longer exists. The lettering reminiscent of the past. The missing "O" is like a symbol for the past. --XRay ^talk 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument for a feature is historical and not based on composition, then? If that's the case, I may just abstain and let others pass judgment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I like the composition too. --XRay ^talk 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A QI for sure but I don't find the composition striking enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. I think it's better to nominate another image. --XRay ^talk 14:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 06:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Maria in Campitelli (Rome) - Interior.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 04:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info All by -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely beautiful. Eyes are drawn and stay busy, and it meets all the techie criteria. Atsme 📞 14:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extraordinary, one of your best! The altar is so golden and luminous! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Klagenfurt Annaichl Waltendorfer Strasse Hochsitz im Morgendunst 04022016 2686.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 11:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Shooting stand on Waltendorfer Strasse, Carinthia, Austria.
Created and uploaded by Johann Jaritz - edited and nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good image -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very, very nice. -- -donald- (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can almost smell being there. Gorgeous shot. Atsme 📞 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Laitche (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is really great artistry! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really like it. -- EVDiam (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Exceptional atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w-o-w! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me the first landscapes pictures in the 19th.c. Congrats both to photographer and nominator.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --PierreSelim (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sfu (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sonntagberg Basilika Deckenfresken 02.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 06:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Ceiling frescos in the nave and the dome of Sonntagberg Basilica (Lower Austria) by Daniel Gran (1738–43):
- Church Militant and Church Triumpant in the nave
- Veneration of the Holy Trinity in the dome
All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A brilliant feat. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 14:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The ceiling is terrific, so I'll tolerate the unsharpness of some of the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria

File:Stift Zwettl Kreuzgang Ost+Nordflügel 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 06:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Cloister at Zwettl Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering photograph. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Had to do a doubletake at first thinking it was a mirrored image. Atsme 📞 14:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria

File:Wolfsberg Thuern 1 Schloss Thuern mit Weinberg 08012016 2623.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2016 at 10:31:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mountain at back left being obscured improves the composition IMO. INeverCry 05:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors look too faded, and the composition is not interesting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice mood but the main subject is a bit too small in this composition. --Laitche (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts. --Karelj (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I respectfully oppose featuring this picture, mostly because the sky prevents me from moving my eye around the picture frame. If most of the sky and possibly part of the snow in the foreground were cropped out, I might like the composition enough to vote for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stift Zwettl Kreuzgang Ost+Nordflügel 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 06:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Cloister at Zwettl Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering photograph. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Had to do a doubletake at first thinking it was a mirrored image. Atsme 📞 14:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria

File:Stift Zwettl Kreuzgang Ost+Nordflügel 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 06:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Cloister at Zwettl Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering photograph. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Had to do a doubletake at first thinking it was a mirrored image. Atsme 📞 14:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria

File:Сорус папоротника Polypodium aureum.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 22:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - uploaded by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - nominated by -- Hubertl 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Fern Polypodium aureum Sorus, Sorus length: 2 mm Sorus is composed of many sporangia that contain spores. You can see rings similar to worms. There are numerous frond stomata around the sorus. Light microscopy, incident light. Total magnification – 50x, focus stacking - 166 images
Support -- Hubertl 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, high EV. Yann (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very picturesque and beautiful colors! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per Arion. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This photo is at its most beautiful at full size. Well composed and really interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --El Grafo (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, it looks even better at full resolution. If I didn't know it was a plant I might dip my hand down and see if these candies have the nice lemony taste they look to have. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Ceiling of the "Assumption of Mary" in Santa Maria Immacolata a via Veneto (Roma).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2016 at 20:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 15:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow with a little bit of Stendhal's s--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support Nice colors, and we can accept the graininess knowing it was a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mathew Ahmann in a crowd.) - NARA - 542015 - Restoration.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2016 at 06:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Rowland Scherman - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad you stuck around Adam. INeverCry 07:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have a dream. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historic picture. --Yann (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for restoring and nominating this photo. I didn't know who Mathew Ahmann was and read up a little. We also tend to forget that this was not just a march for civil rights but for jobs and freedom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant photo, and an excellent restoration. Revent (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Krokussen (Crocus), Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2016 at 19:13:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Crocus #Family Iridaceae.
Info Cheerful spring flowering in the sun. Krokussen (Crocus), Location, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colors. INeverCry 20:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per INeverCry. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and really well composed! --Hubertl 21:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dark background has been lifted too much in post~~, I reckon,~~ leading to a very noisy image visible at screen size. At only 3.5MP this isn't among our finest photographs. Despite the pretty flowers nicely arranged, technical quality is required to be at professional level. -- Colin (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: If only you'd said "I reckon" in your comment on my last FPC, there's no way I could've gotten so pissy...

INeverCry 07:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I look at the EXIF, if removed the "I reckon". Vibrance +25, Exposure +0.20ev, Contrast +25, Shadows +100, Blacks +100, Clarity +31. These are all the reasons why the image is so noisy: it has been pushed considerably in post. -- Colin (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Famberhorst, could you possibly undo some of this? I like the photo, but if it could be improved, that would be great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: ll try what the noise suppressing.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Noise reduction. May also get some cut above and below. --Famberhorst (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you done fixed it up now y'all.

INeverCry 07:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- per Colin -- Scewing (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Owain Knight (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I understand that this is a small file, but to me, it's a much better picture than big ones that are mostly blurred, including some of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Lüdinghausen, Berenbrock, Dortmund-Ems-Kanal (an der Kreisstraße 23) -- 2015 -- 4655.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2016 at 16:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
99999999999999999 … support!!!!!!!!!!! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful and peaceful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support super! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Arion and Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice mood. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one! --El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others :) --Laitche (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 14:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blown a little at upper left, but that's what you'd expect, and everything else is on point. Lovely mood. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salineras de Maras, Maras, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 03-07 PAN.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2016 at 15:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Salineras (salt evaporation ponds) in Maras, Peru. The salt is obtained in Maras since the Inca Empire times and the site is currently composed of around 3.000 ponds of 5 square metres (54 sq ft) each. As the location is surrounded by salty mountains, subterrean water deposits the salty wather in the ponds and the water evaporates due to the exposure to the sun. After aprox. 1 month the level of salt reaches 10 centimetres (3.9 in) and is removed in sacks. All by me, Poc o² 15:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 15:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive view. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of "errors", I can't view the photo at full size, so there's a level of trust here. I also might like the photo more if the crop were further to the left, but I can't know that. Either way, this certainly seems like a deserving candidate, and thanks for the background information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: did you try with a different browser? Poc o² 20:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, only on Firefox. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan I recommend using the Zoom viewer links below the image for very large pictures if your PC can't load them. However, I try those links to day and they aren't responding -- sometimes the WMFLabs needs a reset. -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I used the zoom link, but it only got me to 1,280 × 437 pixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, that's not the "zoom" link, but just one of several downsized options. Look for the text "ZoomViewer:". Sometimes one has to ask at the Village Pump for an admin to fix the server, as it goes down regularly. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see this now. It doesn't seem to be opening, though, as you said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Increíble. Espero que vengan más sorpresas. --The Photographer (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schloss Johannisberg, South view 20140916 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2016 at 18:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO a beautiful composition: vineyard combined with an interesting well lit building and well arranged clear lines. Quality is at a very high level. -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive view. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What the others said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, but the small blurred bird should be removed. --XRay ^talk 07:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. I do not see reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot for the nomination (again)! I have removed all spots I could find. --DXR (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christine Nilsson Nadar.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 23:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Nadar - found, uploaded, stitched, restored and by nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We lack of women ! We miss women ! With this candidacy, I've decided that it is enough with old beards! It is time for beautiful ladies in restored ancient photographs !! Christina Nilsson was a very famous swedish opera vocalist (colorature, then classical soprano) between 1864 and 1891. She was excellent in Mozart's Queen of the Night (die Zauberflöte). Her first appearence was in Paris, Violetta of La Traviata by Giuseppe Verdi. She was the star of many european major opera houses (Vienna, St Petersburg, London, Paris...). She performed Charles Gounod's Faust for the inaugural of the Metropolitan Opera of New York. Rival of the other diva Adelina Patti, she was active until 1891, and died in 1921. In this 1865 french picture by Nadar, I find her very, very beautiful. It was my real pleasure to restore this photograph (original available in history in the file page), and to spend a lot of hours alone with her...-- Jebulon (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful subject and beautiful portrait. Thank you for informing us about her career. I hope you don't mind that I've corrected the spelling of "Giuseppe Verdi" in your link, so that it works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you !--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor suggestion: I think the reddish area on her sleeve is a BNF stamp; might want to edit it out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your support has a special value for me. Of course I'll edit the stamp out asap.--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. (I've corrected "Zauberflöte") --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen ! Danke und Entschuldigung. Warum habe ich einen Umlaut über "Zauber" geschrieben, das weiss ich nicht.--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jebulon: In diesen heil'gen Hallen kennt man die Rache nicht. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Genau, Tamino, zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn, du bist unschuldig, weise, fromm.--Jebulon (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support More women! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very rich tones ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Heraldy at the Castle of Good Hope.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2016 at 06:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info: Gable above the entrance to the seventeenth century Castle of Good Hope in Cape Town created by Martinvl - uploaded by Martinvl - nominated by Martinvl -- Martinvl (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martinvl (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is not completely sharp, but it's good enough, in my opinion, and it's certainly pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but for me a bit too tight crop on the left and right. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is a bit tight and uneven, and the light seems somewhat harsh. INeverCry 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per previous opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:How The Public Domain Has Been Squandered 1884 Cornell CUL PJM 1088.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 16:11:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info Democratic Party, How the Public Domain Has Been Squandered.(1884): A campaign poster from the 1884 Presidential election, between the Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland and the Republican, Senator James G. Blaine. created by Washingbear - uploaded by EVDiam - nominated by EVDiam -- EVDiam (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I co-nominator George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC) This area is as big as Germany, Chech Republic, Austria and Switzerland...[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good condition. Arguably, the small blemishes in the print should be edited out in a version of the picture, but I see no need to quibble about this in my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let this is my nomination now and continued -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's unrestored, but it's not so bad as to need it; just some minor dirt and such. It's a good candidate for the "leave it alone" approach. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps

File:St Peter's Church Nave 2, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2016 at 08:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info If you take a careful look you can see both Diliff and the pope on this picture. Created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Splendid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pfoah! Mehr will ich nicht sagen... --Hubertl 14:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hubertl. --Cayambe (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pratically all pictures of Diliff are featurable. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not natural colors, looks as overprocessed. --Karelj (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Erechtheum Acropolis Athens.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2016 at 22:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support View of the western side of the Erechtheum, with the famous caryatids, and the Athena olive tree. No tourists and interesting sky on the Acropolis, Athens, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well done, definitely a QI, but ultimately doesn't stand out enough to me for such a heavily photographed structure. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Heavily photographed structure indeed,but less than the Eiffel Tower for instance (what extraordinary ?), and judged as the most valued image of his category in VIC...--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Difficult. It's good, but IMO the right wall is a bit overexposed and DoF could be a little bit better (f/10, f/11). --XRay ^talk 07:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- White stones are modern reconstruction stones. It is on purpose. Please see Anastylosis.--Jebulon (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Venerable. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is beautiful, sharp, and leveled, not to say anything about its historic importance. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 16:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Langkofel group from the Sella pass 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 21:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's possible I might have liked the crop to be further to the right, but I definitely find this photo good enough to feature as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gets more interesting the more you look at it. In a perfect world the mountains would be sharper but ... you were shooting a lot of snow and you had to make sure it was properly exposed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- | did not use a tripod, I was riding on a chairlift --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paisley Abbey Ceiling.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 13:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by me. -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EVDiam (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The center of the picture frame is wonderful, but the sides are not so sharp. Is there any way to increase the sharpness of the sides without oversharpening the center? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: I've uploaded a new version with a radial filter to increase the sharpening around the sides and corners. Edge softness is a feature of all lenses to some degree. Also the subject isn't a flat plane, but highly curved. -- Colin (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you. I find it greatly improved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm normally not very interested in ceiling pictures but this one looks special. --Code (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Водяной клещ.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 22:07:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info created and uploaded by Anatoly Mikhaltsov, nominated by Yann (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, high EV, and what colors! -- Yann (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--6AND5 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, a very good picture. I thought of nominating it myself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sfu (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty picture of something you wouldn't expect to be pretty. Love the colors. It would make a great album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, of course. This one is just an other league. --A.Savin 12:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida

File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 171-173 HDR.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 05:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info View of the main nave of the church and Monastery of St. Francis, Quito, Ecuador. The Roman Catholic temple, finalized in the 16th-century, is the largest architetural ensemble among the historical structures of colonial Latin America. The church is also featured by the mixture of different architecture styles as its construction took 150 years. All by me, Poc o² 05:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 05:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Splendid. I think some viewers will suggest that the people who weren't there long enough to be fully exposed should be edited out of the picture, but I think that most viewers will understand what happened and accept it. Either way, I support the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support splendid it is! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 08:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely golden tones, great angle and rich detail. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Diego, as you know I'm a big fan of your work. This one looks a bit overprocessed. Have you tried toning down the HDR effects just slightly? Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. Noticed today that we'll both be in Berlin in April. Can't wait to see you in person again :-)[reply]
Hello Frank, I will look into it this evening (CET) and see what can I do. Poc o² 12:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC) PD: Thanks for your words! Indeed, we'll meet in Berlin soon. I'm looking forward to being there :)[reply]
Frank: I've uploaded a new version. I have compared the HDR with one of the original frames and made some slight adjustments in the curves. I am though not really sure that the result is overprocessed when I look at the original frames. Please, have a look to the result, if you like, I can also update one of the original frames so that you can compare. Poc o² 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the adjustments. I think part of the issue was how my brain dealt with the abundance of the church interior ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Taipei Taiwan Taipei-Bridge-01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 07:46:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
An unconventional view: The pilars of the Taipei Bridge with the Danshui River.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 08:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good photo and different from the usual photos we vote on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ugly scene made beautiful through careful composition (not 100% symmetric, but you'd have to look very closely to notice). Some of the reflection areas are close to pure white, but as there's no hard cut-off, this doesn't really bother me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photographically nice. --Laitche (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors seem a bit off, but it still works for me. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, I like the tones, and I like the "difference".--Jebulon (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon and nice perspective. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per El Grafo. Another scene that would make a great album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abstract. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Albert Reiss LOC ggbain-25651.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 22:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Bain News Service, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank you for this nomination. I remember this one as not being too bad, mainly having issues with trying to make sure you're fixing damage, and not cleaning up early-20th-century New York's mess. I would have thought this was an FP here, frankly, had you asked. I think people can guess my vote, so I shan't vote when not nominating. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Bergtocht van Gimillan (1805m.) naar Colle Tsa Sètse in Cogne Valley (Italië). Waterval boven Gimillan gedeeltelijk in de mist 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 16:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created and uploaded by User:Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A truly beautiful view made more special by the mist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mysterious touch that the mist adds to the image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Frank. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although was this ever nominated before? Or some version of it? It does seem a little familiar ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't find anything similar among his Featured Photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama vom Bürgerturm Gotha.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2016 at 13:31:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Jörg Braukmann| - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support aber nur wegen der 177 gezählten Windräder! --Hubertl 14:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How can I not support such an impressive picture? I just regret that the "full-page" view is so narrow from top to bottom, but that's the way it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but exif data? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 04:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done EXIF-data added. --Milseburg (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support ok now --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As if you are there. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A bit low on "wow," but the sheer detail and documentary value of this image make up for it. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is weak --PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Polychaete errantia.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 12:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created and uploaded by Cosmic73 - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another unusual picture of a living thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a bunny seen under the influence of some serious hallucinogens. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Shoe trees.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 11:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shoe trees?--Claus 13:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Claus, there are Wikipedia links for "Shoe tree" in German, English, French, Japanese and Macedonian from Commons:Category:Shoe trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support not perfect iq but still very convincing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice forms. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a fan of repeating patterns in photography anyway :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might have been sharpened a bit too enthusiastically, but no harm done ultimately. The variations make it that much more pleasing to the eye. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Eurasian wigeon in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2016 at 08:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a beautiful bird head, especially, but the whole bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pose. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job. The water has minimal noise given the situation, and the bird's in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. @Laitche: there is a job for you at National Geographic or in Canon's marketing department. --Pine^✉ 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pine, I am just in between jobs, so I've changed the template to {{User PH-4}} for it... ;-) --Laitche (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche Munich September 2014 02.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 07:10:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Herz-Jesu-Kirche, München is a rare and initially also controversial example of contemporary church architecture in Germany. I've decided to give this photo another shot at FPC as my first nomination (about a year ago) didn't provoke any reaction whatsoever. The image was rather difficult to take. Due to the very tight layout of streets and housing in this district of Munich there simply isn't much space. I also like all the shades of blue dominating the picture. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request I think the perspective distortion is here too much. The church looks to wide on the top?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I'll fix that! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed @Alchemist-hp: should be much better now. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting to say the least. Atsme 📞 14:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting cube! I did not copy and paste, typed! --Laitche (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful forms and geometry. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. Are those solar cells in the curtain wall? Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so (Link in German) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I didn't really want to be the lone opposer, but I find the composition very static. I might like a different photo of this church, perhaps from a different angle, with interesting clouds, but the blue sky just sits there, and the rest of the picture doesn't help my eye much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan for your comment (and vote!). Well, the general design of this church resembles a cube (some sneerers in Munich quipped the building looks like it's supposed to be God's new gym). That's why I prefer a photographic representation like this one - a view from the front seems rather boring to me. Another advantage of this perspective is that it provides for reflections of both the white building to the right and the clock tower to the left (which is not visible here). I also like the crystal blue sky as it matches the color of the church's exterior. But that's a matter of taste of course. --Martin Falbisoner (talk)

Thanks for being gracious and explaining your thinking. My feeling is that I can see how your photo is good for documentation, but we differ on the composition as art. As you said, that's OK, and just a matter of taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BBH gravitational lensing of gw150914.webm, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 03:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by http://www.black-holes.org/ - uploaded by Selecsosi - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 03:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 03:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video explanation: "Video simulation of the view which would be seen by a close observer, of the final merger of GW150914, showing the distortion of the star-field from gravity as the black holes orbit and merge." From the English Wikipedia article First observation of gravitational waves: "The first observation of gravitational waves on 14 September 2015 was announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016. Gravitational waves had previously been observed only indirectly, through their effect on the timing of pulsars in binary systems. The waveform, detected by both LIGO observatories, matched the predictions of general relativity for a gravitational wave emanating from the inward spiral and merger of a pair of black holes and subsequent "ringdown" of the single resulting black hole. The signal was named GW150914."

Support INeverCry 07:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Also high EV. Yann (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I watched this three times on my time line of twitter in last three days :) --Laitche (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole world have contemplated it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Super! I'm glad the video played for me today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great and high EV. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Henry Mayer, The Awakening, 1915 Cornell CUL PJM 1176 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 15:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info Mayer Henry, The Awakening, 1915:

Lady Liberty, wearing a cape labeled "Votes for Women," stands astride the states (colored white) that had adopted suffrage. created by User:Washingbear - uploaded by EVDiam - nominated by User:EVDiam -- EVDiam (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EVDiam (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Interesting, significant print, good reproduction. What's your feeling about whether the photo should be retouched to eliminate the representation of damage to the paper? Is fidelity in reproduction or a closer approach to perfection in the image more important? I don't know, so I'm just throwing out the question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a very interesting question. Personally, I don’t have only one and clear opinion. I think it depends. A first thought is that a historical document is valuable because of its content and not because of the perfection in restoration. On the other hand, a good restoration of a completely damaged document is a very serious and difficult work. However, sometimes it is important to keep some damages, because potentially could give more information about the object. EVDiam (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dingy gray with prominent fold marks. I don't see how keeping age/folding damage is considered a faithful reproduction or a restoration. The original would've been white and unfolded. I guess it's a plus that this doesn't have the oxidation damage the last one had. INeverCry 20:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to me that the original was intended to be folded (page numbers 14-15) and as that I see no problem with the folding damage. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan and Kruusamägi. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So much else is so clear that I don't mind the damage. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Adam's version is better, so I'm moving my !vote to it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[[:Category:|]] ...This looks easy. I'll have a go at it after I sleep. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: Even ignoring the fold issue, a higher-resolution copy can be seen at https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:8245859 - we shouldn't promote anything so replaceable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose for now - per Adam --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC) ~~:* Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)~~ per vote for the alternative --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A higher-resolution version is uploaded. EVDiam (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started restoring it. Obviously, the PNG thumbnailer's problems are rather clear in that, but as you can see, the damage is readily repairable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Great job Adam Cuerden . Thanks! EVDiam (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Adam's restoration is better therefore this can't be the "finest on Commons". -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change my vote to Oppose. I think that a faithful representation of the current condition could indeed be of value, as EVDiam indicates above, but that would make it a Quality Image and perhaps (depending on how the scope is defined) a Valued Image. I'm going with the alternative for Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Created by Henry Mayer; restored by Adam Cuerden
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EVDiam, Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, and Kruusamägi: @Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, and Colin: Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great restoration, and clearly a better representation of the intent of the illustrator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Please can you save the file with an sRGB colourspace tag & embedded profile. I assume that's the colourspace of the original, but without the tag web browsers will generally not display the correct colours on a wide-gamut monitor. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adam, I'm still not seeing any profile or tag. -- Colin (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then my version of GIMP doesn't handle that properly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Adam, it definitely does, and knowing what colorspace you are working in and saving to is vital for handling artworks. See Image Mode menu and GIMP color management. You should have your GIMP set up to use sRGB as your working space, and warn/prompt you if the JPG/PNG you are loading has a different or missing one (and offer to convert/assign as appropriate). It is possible that GIMP has some wrongheaded "save for the Web" option that strips out colour profiles, and which shouldn't be used (it's a hangover from dial-up-modem days where every kb counted). Continue this on my talk if you want, though I don't use GIMP. Certainly if you don't have your GIMP set up for colour management (e.g. CM turned off) then there is a real risk you will open an AdobeRGB image and accidentally strip off this and make the image over-saturated as a result. -- Colin (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's more that it's metadataing weirdly, I think. I'm updating it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Okay. It's definitely in sRGB - GIMP is clear on that - but GIMP refuses to put that into metadata. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        How can GIMP be "clear" that it is "in sRGB" if it contains no metadata. That's like saying the number "20" is in Celsius: without a scale (colourspace) it is just a file containing numbers. Other people manage to save files with tags+profiles in GIMP, and the program does claim to be colour managed (if that option is enabled) so I think you are simply doing something wrong. I'll install it at home tonight if I get a chance. It is really rather important for artworks to explicitly define the colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done some playing with GIMP. Out of the box, on Windows 10, GIMP doesn't seem to have a working colour profile at all. I open Preferences and select the Color Mangement tab. "Color managed display" is default mode of operation, but this is pointless unless it knows the working profile or monitor profile. So I select a RGB profile (browse to C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color and choose "sRGB Color Space Profile.icm" which will appear as "sRGB IEC61966-2.1"). I tick the box to "try to use the system monitor profile" for the Monitor Profile aspect (I have a wide-gamut monitor that has been profiled). For the "File Open behaviour" I choose "Ask what to do" which is the default. This last option does not seem to work the same as Photoshop for files with no embedded profile (vs one with a different embedded profile). With Photoshop, when I try to load your file, it says "The document "...." does not have an embedded RGB profile. What would you like to do?" and I can assign a working profile like sRGB or leave it without a profile (no colour management). GIMP seems to assume images with no profile should remain not colour managed. So I'm afraid there is no option than to go to the Image -> Mode -> Assign Color Profile..." menu. The pop-up dialog claims (for me) the Current Color Profile is "sRGB IEC61966 2.1" but I suspect that is simply because I've made that my working profile. Ensure the "Assign" field is "RGB workspace (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)" and press Assign. Then export the JPG. This magically tells GIMP that we really would like to properly colour manage this file and embed a profile. You can use Jeffrey's Exif Viewer to confirm, or download exiftool.exe and use it (exiftool -a -u -g1 "...." will display all tags/profile information). It is disappointing that GIMP does not properly handle images that have no profile, and prompt you to assign one on file-open (it manages fine if the image has AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB profiles embedded). Unless you want to move to Photoshop (£8.57 a month for Lightroom + Photoshop) then you may just have to keep remembering to use the "Assign Color Profile" menu for images that lack an embedded profile. Or raise a bug against GIMP. -- Colin (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment on my !vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps

The chosen alternative is: File:Henry_Mayer,_The_Awakening,_1915_Cornell_CUL_PJM_1176_01_-_Restoration.jpg

File:Kanariku järv 2015 10.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 19:17:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Vaido Otsar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Nice colors but the sides are a bit too dark, and sharpness could be better. We have plenty of better "Estonian lake during autumn" photos. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. INeverCry 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, with the "a bit darker sides"! This is a photogrphic framing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this picture beautiful and restful, so the dark sides don't bother me. I do see a bit of noise at full size, but at full-page size, this is a really beautiful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support More of Estonia's outstanding natural beauty. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture is beautiful. 213.230.78.174 11:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC). Log-in needed to cast a vote. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I take KoH comment that "Estonian lake during autumn" has been done already, but I like the leaves at the bottom leading the eye to the distance. -- Colin (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mano Seca bench at Selby Campground, Carrizo Plain National Monument.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2016 at 20:19:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United States
Info created by manoseca - uploaded by Matthewobrien~commonswiki - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 20:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 20:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow factor here for me. INeverCry 00:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Done the right way this could be wonderfully surreal, but it's not. In addition to the rather ordinary composition, we also have evidence of overprocessing in the sky. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shoeless Joe Jackson by Conlon, 1913.jpeg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 21:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Charles Conlon - uploaded & nominated by User:Scewing -- Scewing (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the holes in his hat and the well-worn uniform. Today's players usually look like they're about to do a TV commercial at any moment. INeverCry 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Terrific. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this restored or is it just an impressively pristine photo? If a restoration, there's a tiny bit of damage in the lower left that could be fixed, but it's a very minor thing. Either way, it's excellent. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info Unrestored, it just comes from a very high quality glass plate negative. I agree it is amazingly pristine for an image taken 103 years ago. Scewing (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture of a needlessly disgraced baseball legend. But ... I think it would look even better cropped to more of a vertical, à la a baseball card. The sides do not add anything to the image and, as Adam noted, they have some technical difficulties best not included in the image. Further, the baseball-card crop would draw even more attention to that haunting stare. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the composition. It gives it a feel of a baseball stadium. I think, in general, we should usually promote an uncropped version, then take crops from it for other uses, unless the area cropped causes composition issues (e.g. in this Strayhorn image the legs excessively dominated the scene due to the camera being fairly near him; a crop fixes this issue, and we have the uncropped whenever we want it. We might also crop wasted space, e.g. if there's a blank wall either side, or crop a dozen or so pixels to square off an image and keep the border from intruding, say. But where, as here, it's a matter of both being good, go with the less cropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:West view from Piz Boe.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2016 at 21:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but the snow in the foreground is gray rather than white. INeverCry 22:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an old discussion: Snow is only white when it is overexposed. Snow has thowsand shades. My brother draws snow with charcoal ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful, as usual from you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC) per vote below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl 10:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Karelj. Too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but would support a 16:9 crop (removing the bottom) which makes the image/composition stronger. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carls stoll Bergslagssafari.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2016 at 10:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by Vivo - uploaded by Vivo - nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{support}} -- Vivo (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support - I like it. One request: Please add a mention of what was being mined to the description of the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Done --Vivo (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has anyone seen Indiana Jones? --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 14:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose Well-done, and a QI for sure, but I don't see anything special enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On second thought, how much of a deal breaker is the can? I'm not sure myself, so I switch to neutral. --Vivo (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Globe fresco in the Palace of Caserta.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 09:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
I withdraw my nomination World Fresco of the 1770 (note that completely lacks the Antarctic) all by -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm inclined to support, but first: This photo doesn't feel like it has the pinpoint focus of some of your work, though that could be a function of how the light is shining on it. Also, I'd like your affirmation that the colors are a true representation of how this looks. Finally, I think a bit more information in the file description - at least the fact that it dates from 1770, as you note here - would be a good thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but much too yellow. Yann (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone post any links to other pictures of this so we might settle the color issue? Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three examples here on Commons, and one from Google search. INeverCry 07:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Prinzipalmarkt -- 2014 -- 4516-20-2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 06:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info The road is sloping to the right. -- XRay ^talk 06:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, but note that the building on the right is leaning in slightly. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now. Thanks. --XRay ^talk 07:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Again, is this another one where a similar image was unsuccessfully nominated in the past? This does seem familiar. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the same series. This one won 31th place at Wiki Loves Monuments Germany 2015. --XRay ^talk 07:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I wish it was sharper. I often experienced the same kind of softness with my crop camera and the EF-S lenses. Maybe that's because there's something going wrong with the focus. Did you try to set the focus manually? --Code (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice indeed --Rettinghaus (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Silesian - Moravian Beskids in autumn 2015.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2016 at 11:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magic forest. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would support it if the file was larger, but this version is too much downsampled. There's no reason to provide only thumbnail size pictures of landscape motifs. --Code (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have only this version. But thank you for your voting :) --Pudelek (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Code. Yann (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mist is nice but it lacks any special light (e.g. this). And the resolution is way too low for landscape. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose due to the low resolution of an image I otherwise very much like. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012.10.20-17-Mannheim Vogelstang--Baldachinspinne-Linyphia Triangularis-Weibchen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 17:36:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Linyphiidae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great catch by the spider and the photographer. This is another "in-environment" shot that works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Linyphiidae

File:2013.05.18.-32-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Braune-Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 11:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Thomisidae_.28Crab_spiders.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would nice to have the species of the victim. --Yann (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dramatic photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Our second picture in a week that is a "great catch" in more ways than one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Thomisidae_.28Crab_spiders.29

File:Al Grey (Gottlieb).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 08:22:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by en:William P. Gottlieb; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a pity the crop, but good...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that hat. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Finkenstein Faak am See Kreisverkehr Rosental Strasse Bikermonument 20022016 0601.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 07:37:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool sculpture. Glad I got to look at that before heading to bed. INeverCry 07:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support is similar my harley --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support COM:FOP Austria checks out, and that was the only thing I was worried about. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not the image I'd expect with the Alps in the background. Very cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sfu (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image testifying to the wisdom of FoP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 21:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rep. Barbara Jordan - Restoration.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 06:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by the United States Congress; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good picture of her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 07:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but a question Adam Cuerden,why all these black people? Do you find all now?--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's black history month, and it's something I've been meaning to do a while. Just finally got organized this year - made up lists and worked through them. Of the ones I think have a chance on Commons, you've seen about half, though a lot of the remaining are Jazz musicians because of Gottlieb's release of his work into the public domain (the biggest obstacle I found was lack of availability of good images). Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok,only for know. In italy this month is only...february --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Livioandronico2013: February's not over yet! =) Though I will be switching things up more soon, as Women's History Month and ANZAC Day start looming. Do remember, though, that Commons' FPC process is a little slower than I work, so things tend to appear here some time later than on en-wiki's FPC. (This one, for instance, was done being restored on the 1st of February - though, to be fair, I did intentionally hold it back to try and see if I could find the date and more information.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good job overall (I love that she looks like she could be played in a movie or on TV by Leslie Jones ... that would be interesting!). But I'd like to know if something could be done about that yellow splotch on the left end of her collar. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Support now that that's fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: Trying to figure out if it's justified. Probably is, but I won't be able to really look at it until tomorrow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Daniel Case: Aye, don't think it's original. Removed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Taipei Taiwan Taipei-101-Tower-01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 12:06:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created and uploaded by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Arion. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's one unsharp area at the near left corner, but you can see the unsharpness only at full size. I also might like the photo more with some strategically placed clouds, although I like the soft hues in the sky. All that said, this is a good photo and gets my Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting angle and the buildings only make it work better. Unsharpness at sides, yes, but that's a tradeoff you had to make. It sort of reminds me of one of the opening shots of Lucy although that's Taipei at dawn there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Afdrukken van waterdruppels in ijslaag op Jonkersloot. Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 17:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info: printing of water droplets into ice Jonkersloot. Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fun to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely and unusual texture ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Hannibal Slodtz Louvre MR2093.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 16:57:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I would support the other picture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. Not particularly sharp/detailed. Compare the (much lower resolution) File:Annibal.JPG, showing at least as much detail. And the other picture has better separation of background, better lighting, and isn't so over-exposed. Also, if ever a picture doesn't need AdobeRGB, it's this. -- Colin (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. INeverCry 19:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think I agree with you guys. The smaller picture might be better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per the others. This is one of the numerous pictures from the Louvre needing a re-shot.--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metro MSK Line5 Novoslobodskaya.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 13:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created & uploaded by Florstein - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Striking scene, excellent photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dizzy composition! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture too. --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best of the Moscow Metro interiors we've seen here recently. Love the perspective and focus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Portugal 1729 8 Escudos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 19:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Money_.26_Seals
Info An eight Portuguese escudo gold coin depicting João V (obv) and the House of Braganza coat of arms (rev). While different denominations of the Portuguese gold escudo were produced from 1722 to 1821, the eight escudo coin was only struck for a fairly brief period (1722 and 1724–30). Created by the Kingdom of Portugal (coin),National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History (image) - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Godot13 -- Godot13 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love how I can see the little scratches in the gold at full resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I need of these...in my bank account :) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Money_.26_Seals

File:Santa Maria in Traspontina (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 08:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Allowing for the long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor Gillam A Thing Well Begun Is Half Done 1899 Cornell CUL PJM 1136 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 14:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
Info A satirical political cartoon reflecting America's imperial ambitions following quick and total victory in the Spanish American War of 1898. uploaded by EVDiam - nominated by User:EVDiam -- EVDiam (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 15:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of hate to do this again, but there's a larger version of this and the other. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - So maybe those versions should be uploaded with permission? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been done for the one above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will ask.EVDiam (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shrunk-down copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Maps

File:West view from Piz Boe 16to9.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 15:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info alternative version as suggested by Colin by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I prefer the original version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support better, more balanced composition --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xerocomellus chrysenteron, Edible fungi in basket 2013 G1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2016 at 14:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Was this one nominated before at some point? Nice colors, but still too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

before was nominated other image -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support For me is a great composition,and i love the basket (remember me Little Red Riding Hood) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the mushrooms and don't mind the number of forms at all, but I find the crop kind of random. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary. No reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paisley Abbey Interior East.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 22:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by me. Should anyone have difficulty viewing the 74MP image in their browser, here's a 50% size 18.5MP version. -- Colin (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light and textures. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Stupendous! This really has a "wow" value and then some! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Code (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 21:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive even at thumbnail size --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Kaohsiung Taiwan Floating-dock-Jong-Shyn-01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 21:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by and uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this picture interesting enough to support, and it's certainly high-quality, as we'd expect from you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture comprises all elements for becoming a featured image. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, photos of cranes are boring; but here I really cannot resist. Maybe this are the colours that make the scenery so eye-catching. --A.Savin 16:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I was unsure, but then I looked at it in full resolution and was ... wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Orchidaceae hybrid Cymbidium Doris 1912.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 20:40:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support/ Very nice, like a painting -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for me, the resolution is too small for FP. --Hubertl 22:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but resolution is too small in my opinion. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Kruusamägi (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too small. INeverCry 22:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Give us a greater Resolution so I will change my mind ;-) -- -donald- (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this case a larger resolution is irrelevant for me. The image itself is awesome. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the colors in this one, reminds me of how old professional illustrations look. I also like the composition and the smooth lighting and shadow, though I wish the background had less visible structure. But the over-all quality is not quite at FP level: Apart from being relatively small, it is not really sharp at the top. --El Grafo (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC) I strike my oppose now, and think again ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info This second image is larger and sharper. Thank you for your collaboration. Please have a look to this image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just looks too artificial in too many places. Like it doesn't know whether it wants to be an illustration or a photograph when it grows up. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very artistic with the shadows! but a bit small and a little lack of quality on the two top flowers Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomoplagia lateral.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2016 at 15:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created and uploaded by Leonardorejorge - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm guessing the reason no-one has yet voted or commented on this picture is that they're not really sure what to say. This picture has value in documenting a view of this type of fruit fly, but compared to the beautiful light microscope images we've been voting on lately, or on the other hand, the pristine closeups of birds and some insects that we've been seeing, this seems to me to occupy an uncomfortable middle. The fly is not that sharp, and in terms of composition, it sort of hovers between some fuzzy white light and the fuzzy white tendrils of some plant that also seem to hover in midair, and which the viewer may have trouble identifying. I'm somewhat reluctant to firmly oppose featuring this photo, in case the documentation aspect of it might be judged to have great value, but I think this is really more in the nature of a Valued Image of the fly than a Featured Photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan's observations and the black spots, one of which is very visible at right. INeverCry 00:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since that comment practically dares someone to !vote, I'm going to agree with it that it is definitely QI but does not rise to FP level. Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all comments. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canyon do buracão.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2016 at 14:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Ronaldo tozzi - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support small but good and nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would support it if the file was larger, but this version is too much downsampled. There's no reason to provide only thumbnail size pictures of landscape motifs. --Code (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Code. Yann (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting landscape but not convinced about composition and light is not special. Agree the 2.6MP resolution is not acceptable for landscape FP. -- Colin (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Code. I'd also like some perspective ... is that a raging river or a tumbling creek at the bottom? Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pretty crocus at the caravan site at Pool in Yorkshire (5596266616).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2016 at 13:12:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by rawdonfox from Leeds, Yorkshire - uploaded and nominated by Pokéfan95 -- ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to crop of top leaves and bad background --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the crop it too bad for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1. INeverCry 18:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with the others. What is that white thing, anyway? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --★Cyndaquil⁹⁵ 06:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I confirm that User:Cyndaquil (Pokéfan95) is my alternate account. I also confirm that I withdraw my nomination. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013.06.04.-15-Viernheimer Heide Viernheim-Krabbenspinne-Ebrechtella tricuspidata-Weibchen.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2016 at 19:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Thomisidae_.28Crab_spiders.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm going to respectfully Oppose this one, because my feeling is, if you want to have a Featured Picture showing a type of spider that blends almost perfectly into a leaf, you need to have a very sharp photo, not one in which the right side of the spider blurs into the leaf. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice green but sorry where is in focus... --Laitche (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully per Laitche --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers; in addition the unsharpness makes for some color noise on the leaf. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liausson from Villeneuvette, Hérault 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 05:09:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo lacks the mist or clouds below the snow that two of my most recent nominations had, but I nonetheless find this a great picture. It has qualities that remind me of some really fine painted landscapes, including a great depth of field and contrast between different landforms, each other and the sky, and above all, it really rewards the viewer who moves his/her eye around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like this if the vegetation came more naturally up to the dirt road, but the big swath cut/cleared away at right, and what we can see of the same to the left of the road, makes the lower half of the image empty, rough, and unattractive. If only the lower half had more of its natural cover of foliage... INeverCry 06:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per INeverCry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will try responding to your opposing review, which is content-laden. I understand the review, and I hope this reply doesn't seem disrespectful, but here is it, anyway: Not every great photo fulfills some kind of conventional set of criteria of beauty. Did you at least try moving your eyes around the picture frame and experiencing the arabesque before opposing the feature? If you did and found it wanting, I have no basis for arguing, but if you didn't and just feel like rejecting it as "unattractive" without considering it as a work of art, rather than purely as an image, I feel like you've missed the point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Using a road to lead the eye from a corner to a central subject is a basic artistic device. But here there is no strong central subject. The road just disappears behind some shrubs. That the bottom half of the picture is uninteresting and unattractive is quite a serious problem. I don't (only) mean "attractive" in sense of beauty, but in sense of attracting the eye, and rewarding it. It might be a useful documentary image of the area, but I don't see a strong "work of art" and disagree that a landscape painter would fill so much of the canvas with dirt and dead grass. -- Colin (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Colin, thanks for expressing your view so eloquently. To you, INeverCry and Martin Falbisoner: Would you all prefer a cropped version in which most of the dirt were cropped out of the foreground? I think that could be a good composition. If so, Christian (or perhaps someone else), would you be willing to try one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a crop would help. Christian presumably meant to document the track from one place to another, with the accompanying view. The distant countryside is pleasant enough, but Christian has taken/uploaded hundreds, if not thousands, of images of the countryside of this part of France, and this is not imo a special one. It needs something, both in the subject and the photography, to give it "wow". -- Colin (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination Ikan, me too I like this image since I uploaded it, however I agree with others that it lacks something in the foreground to really have potentiel to make an outstanding image. I don't think a crop would had a lot here, however I can promise so soon I return near this place I will try to make another image, maybe with april/may flowers or some sunset lights...or both. Or a different composition. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)...[reply]

Thanks, Christian. I will withdraw my nomination, and I'll look forward to your further pictures of this motif. Thanks also for your considered opinions, everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fachada sul do edifício Copan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 17:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by RTA - nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm undecided and maybe leaning somewhat toward opposing this one, for two reasons: (a) The light seems very gray, accentuating the unattractiveness of the motif; (b) Parts of the picture, especially in the lower left, are quite blurry at full size and don't feel fully focused even at full-page size. I like the composition, though. I think the best solution would be for Rodrigo to retake this photo in a warmer light, with a much clearer focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Ikan, I know most of that...

I told them to not nominate [3], because I'll try to go back there (This is a view from another building, and I need a authorization to enter there, and I don't know if I'll gonna get again).

However the problem is not the focus, is that this is a 250 mm in a APS body (400mm), and very low build quality lens. At the centre the sharpness is almost there, moving away from there, this start to be appalling. I didn't use any stack technique, or panoramic, to increase the sharpness, I just did a very quickly HDR because of the dark areas, and I was in a short time.

The problem of the cool colours are in a place that do not appears on the picture, first it is the South face, don't receive much of the light (and also the photos, that's why I uploaded), and also this is under repair, have long blue tissues covering both sides of this area, light is hitting hard there and creating this blue feeling, and I changed the real colour that I captured: [4].

Thanks for your time. :) -- RTA 18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RTA the rules permit either nominators or authors to withdraw an image from FPC if that is how you feel. I don't see this image going anywhere if you didn't want it nominated. -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: "Could you nominate my picture?" [5] :) --The Photographer (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer "no abre la aplicación de esta fotografía". This was not a ask for a nomination, was a ask for not nominate it. ;) -- RTA 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I'm sorry. Lost in translation portuspanfrenchglis --The Photographer (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost RTA, Almost! ;P 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS.: Sempre que precisar de mim para nomear alguma de suas imagens, contate-me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I should have sought permission from RTA. --The Photographer (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hochhaus Neue Donau Vienna from NW on 2012-08-08.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2016 at 17:14:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Hochhaus Neue Donau ("High-rise New Danube"), a modern residential building in Vienna from the north-west on August 8, 2012. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Robert F. Tobler (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Robert F. Tobler (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like this photo very much but I'm not sure whether to support it for a feature, because the very dark trees at the bottom bug me. They're so dark that even at full size, they form what's pretty much an undifferentiated mass. However, the picture of the building is excellent. I'm not sure what the solution is - is there a time of day when more light would hit the trees and the building would still look good? If so, maybe it's best to try retaking the photo then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the times of the day where the trees are illuminated, the illumination of the building is boring. A few steps to the right, the trees are not visible but the streets, billboards and other things at the foot of the building destroy the clean image that is maintained with the trees as a silhouette (see

). --Rftblr (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree with your appraisal of these two views. I find this view far superior to the one with very dark trees. If you or someone else offers a nomination of the second picture, I'd be happy to support featuring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the other version I even had to move quite a bit forward to avoid a crowded foreground. Thereby the perspective distortion on the top of the building is significantly and unnaturally exaggerated. This is also why I nominated the version with the dark row of bushes. --Rftblr (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless, I think the result was good. Let's see what others say, and I hope that our conversation doesn't result in making people reluctant to vote or express their opinion, as sometimes happens, somehow, as a result of conversations... Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A good QI, but nothing about this says FP to me, especially not the shadow over the leaves. INeverCry 20:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the shadows. If light were coming from the left, there wouldn't be a shadow on the front of the building. The black areas at the bottom are also distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could stand for the bottom to be cropped in a little more, but for me the building is so well done otherwise that it doesn't matter. As for the angle of the light ... when we make that part of our reason to oppose, we should consider whether the opposite angle was possible. Since we know the date, time and exact location from which this image was taken, I decided to plug it into the Photographer's Ephemeris and see if that would be possible.
Yes, it seems, it would be ... but only if the photographer had gotten up early and shot just after dawn. Whether the image would be well-served by golden-hour light is an exercise for the visualizer, and I am also so far removed from my last (and so far only) visit to Vienna that I cannot possibly say whether the sun would have completely lit the building at that hour. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per INeverCry. --Karelj (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Rftblr (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Webysther 20151224005954 - Raio (cropped).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2016 at 15:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty small, but quite striking and a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose centered composition doesn't work for me; image quality could also be a bit better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the larger version is better but I agree with Martin Falbisoner that the composition is not at FP level. --Code (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medieval church of Monastero del Sacro Speco (Subiaco).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2016 at 18:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Support - I support this image and love Gothic frescoes! However, I would suggest for you to consider cropping the nearest portion of the floor because it's unsharp and unnecessary for the picture. Ideally, I would have preferred to see more of the cut-off fresco high on the wall, instead. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the (near overexposed) light on the right side make the image not very balanced, and in all cases not outstanding. A bit too much foreground too for my tastes. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A quarter of the image is of the floor, but taken at such an angle that no floor detail can be seen (compare this). Why would one want the point-of-view of a mouse, rather than a human? The painting above the arch is cropped off but is arguably the most important image in this room (compare this). As Christian notes, the dynamic range is not well handled. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's really persuasive, especially the second image you linked. I'll Oppose, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Christian and Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rome (Italy), Padlock at Ponte Palatino -- 2013 -- 3.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2016 at 17:41:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like this better if the entire background was the same darkish gray. INeverCry 20:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think you know how much I respect your greatness as a photographer, but since I find fault with truly interesting pictures of flora and fauna that have a very shallow depth of field and end up as mostly a blur, I don't see how I can support this picture. The lock by itself is not interesting or beautiful enough to me; I feel like the picture needs something more, and by the way, an entirely gray background is definitely not it, in my opinion. Some cheery brightness or interest beyond a partly rusted chain is needed for me to want to feature the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{o}} - I think the idea is interesting, could be much more meaningful if the lock would really lock the chain!.----Mpj7 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)~~ not a valid vote! --Hubertl 20:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. I'll finish the nomination, so other images can be reviewed. I think you're right, my image is not good enough for FP. --XRay ^talk 05:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Umland -- 2014 -- 15.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 19:22:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another photo from this set was nominated unsuccessfully here: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Umland -- 2014 -- 14.jpg. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think, like the other one, this has the ingredients of a good photo but somehow they didn't work out. The trees aren't the most photogenic kind; the sun doesn't quite shine through the branches the best way; the mist makes the rightmost trees look smudged. The other one had a strong composition and better backlighting of the grass, but suffered also from the smudge-look on the right. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin. This photo isn't an easy one to move one's eye around, and though the light and mood are interesting, they don't compensate sufficiently for that in this instance, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination You're right. Short time for this decision. --XRay ^talk 04:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A common quail in Lebanon.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 16:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by KaouroV - uploaded by KaouroV - nominated by KaouroV -- KaouroV (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KaouroV (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is just too distracting, especially the white round shape near the bird's beak. INeverCry 17:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per INeverCry, and also because this photo doesn't come close to stacking up to the recent FPC standard of bird pictures in which every visible feather is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2016 (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: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2016 (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.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014.10.01.-12-Edertal Bringhausen--Herbst-Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen bei Eiablage.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 13:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Aeshnidae_.28Hawker_dragonflies.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The big stalk in the right foreground between camera and subject is too distracting. INeverCry 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with INeverCry again. I was also thinking "the viewer can't tell what the subject of the photo is", but I don't think that's my problem. I don't really care what the claimed subject is if the composition is great, but I don't find this picture a real pleasure to move my eye around. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh, and I hope you know how much respect I have for your work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and INeverCry. A pity—that image has so much going for it otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad. This is one of my most difficult pictures I've ever made. The grass in that I moved gingerly with the tripod was higher than my hip. The female had to hide in order to lay her eggs because of a crossing male that wanted to couple with her and remove the fertilized eggs from the former male out of her. This is what the composition says. It's a pity that you don't recognize this. So I withdraw my nomination.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:British shorthair • Британская (5309091028).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2016 at 09:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Nickolas Titkov, uploaded by INeverCry, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another nice home beast. -- Yann (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support How cute and lovely! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So beautiful! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't understand what's impressive about this picture. It's a mostly (though not totally) sharp picture of a cat's head, plus a blurry image of part of its body, and the cat is kind of funny-looking to me and doesn't have a fantastic facial expression or anything. How is this "one of the finest images"? I haven't been able to search any category for Featured, Quality or Valued images for a week or two (and, incidentally, someone who knows how should fix that - I use the latest version of Firefox on a Windows 8.1 platform), but look through Category:Felis silvestris catus and if you can find the Featured images, see if this compares to any of them. I think this is merely a Quality Image, and not among the best of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, a picture of a such an ordinary subject must be exceptional to became FP. This one does not for my taste, in any way.--Jebulon (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --El Grafo (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination as uploader. Please. INeverCry 18:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiralty Building Central Frieze.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2016 at 09:35:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Allegorical аrieze bas-relief "The Establishment of fleet in Russia" on Admiralty Building Central Frieze in Saint Petersburg
Info all by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately taken on a sunny day resulting in harsh shadows (especially the long horizontal shadow on the top), otherwise worth another try (on a cloudy day). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christoph. --El Grafo (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. High quality, high EV, still very nice even with a bit harsh shadows. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shadows are an issue, but most of the statues are not in shadow, so it is ok for me. Great quality! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christoph. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to recognize the achievement of this photo, so I'm reluctant to oppose it, but I basically agree with the point of view of the opposers. This is a very good photo, but it could be better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Christoph Braun. INeverCry 18:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shadows don't bother me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. When such a Frieze is photographed under lighting that does not cast the shadow from above, the whole Frieze would look a lot flatter and more boring. Only by taking the photo in sunlight, the 3-dimensionality of the figures is fully emphasized! Good work! --Rftblr (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Robert. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as George --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was planning to nominate it myself. Nothing wrong here. --A.Savin 13:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Christoph. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christoph does have a point, but "featured" does not mean "perfect", to me. Absolutely everything can be wished to be better, and then better still. Here's ten bucks saying the original sculptor actually had the same criticism of his own work when he first saw it in bright sunlight. Nothing to be done about it now. It's out there, and that's how it looks. The shadow is an integral part of the frieze. Deal with it. --Schwallex (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daurian redstart (female) in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016 III.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2016 at 08:59:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 10:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely sharp feathers. --Rftblr (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As Rftblr points out above, it's a brilliant photo of the bird. The only thing that bugs me somewhat is the blurriness of the stump in the bottom foreground. If there were a way to crop it out from the bottom without cropping out part of the bird, I'd suggest that, but that isn't possible. I'll tolerate it, but I'd find it better if it were sharpened just a bit, as the presence of a bright blurred thing in the foreground is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the bird, but not the tree. INeverCry 18:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was either get the whole bird or get rid of the unsharp stump. Since the bird's the subject I can live with it. If it had been me I might have cropped away the branch at left to lessen the impact. But that's the photographer's choice, and I can live with it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support well balanced Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --XRay ^talk 08:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the trunk doesn't bother me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Robert. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I Like...this shot are very rare and not simple --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Regierungsviertel, Berlin-Mitte, Blaue Stunde, HDR, Panorama, 160206, ako.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2016 at 18:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created and uploaded by Code - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info HDR version
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you add File:Regierungsviertel, Berlin-Mitte, Blaue Stunde, Panorama, 160206, ako.jpg as an alternative? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Christoph Braun:

Done that's seems reasonable Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support More night panoramas. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this photo, with the caveat that I prefer the non-HDR version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version has a warmer tone, but the other pops out more... I can't decide! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version; it's more even in tone. Daniel Case (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination, Christian! I've spent hours looking at those pictures but honestly I still don't know which one I like more. --Code (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions are excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly, I can't decide which of the versions are more superior. I think there are no differences in both versions! Both versions are outstanding! Napakahusay! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info no HDR version
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this version, which has more vivid colors and contrast. The HDR version is fine, but clicking between the two versions shows how much the HDR homogenized a view that was much more striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors are natural, HDR version looks a bit artificial colors for me, and light of the cars is strange. --Laitche (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination, Christian! I've spent hours looking at those pictures but honestly I still don't know which one I like more. --Code (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support both versions are excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reviewing both images in full resolution I noticed the slightly different crop. In the end I prefer this version for its richer blacks in the water, the more credible gradient in sky tones and the pronounced street light with its striking star burst effect on the right side. Both images are of equal quality, so in the end it's a question of personal preference. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me the non-HDR version clearly wins, since it is more dramatic --Rftblr (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whatever. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly, I can't decide which of the versions are more superior. I think there are no differences in both versions! Both versions are outstanding! Napakahusay! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

The chosen alternative is: File:Regierungsviertel,_Berlin-Mitte,_Blaue_Stunde,_Panorama,_160206,_ako.jpg

File:Catedral Presbiteriana do Rio de Janeiro.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2016 at 15:43:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This doesn't have the pinpoint focus overall at full resolution that, for example, some of Diliff's interiors do, but I think it's quite good enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 01:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Ikan says, not perfect but I love it, perhaps more for that. Maybe because it's a Protestant church in the world's most Catholic country ... something we don't see much. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was there, the photo is very realistic --Ezarateesteban 11:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Laguna de Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 16-19 PAN.JPG, featured, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural

Info Lake Salinas is a salt pan located in the Arequipa Region, Perú. It is located within the Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reservation. The lake is 4,300 metres (14,100 ft) over the sea level and its size is 6,182 hectares (15,280 acres) but shrinks to a thin salt crust in the dry season. All by me, Poc o² 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Poc o² 13:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support My god. I envy you, I want know that place. Wow Amazing. --The Photographer (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The far left looks like it is sloping down about 2°. I know the white salt line might be bent round the lagoon, but I think it is probably straight here. A clue is the cliff face of the hill above, which forms a dark band and if it corresponds to a layer of rock might be horizontal (though again can't be sure). Anyway, a 2° rotation of that portion sure makes the land look better there. So could this be a stitching artifact, or a consequence of a hand-held panorama not being quite aligned? -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin, I reworked that area and uploaded a new version, please, let me know what you think Poc o² 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new image seems very stretched at both sides -- 2x wider in places and not sharp. I don't think it changed the slope issue. I'm afraid for the stretching of the scene I have to ~~Oppose~~ for now. Are you using Lightroom to stitch? I've found it ok for some small simple stitches but it isn't really configurable or precise. Contact me if you want me to help stitch with PtGui. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can "live" with the previous version, I just restored it. My general modus operandi with panoramas is the following: I usually use LR. Sometimes I do have problems with LR and for whathever reasons (LR is not good at providing feedback) and then give it a try with PTGui Pro. I can use that tool pretty good in the meanwhile, I think. In this particular case I have to say that the result with LR was better than with PTGui (that is rarely the case). Yesterday, I actually gave it several tries but in spite of having 25 control points for each stitch the result was not good (stitching problems visible, which was not the case with LR). Well, long story short, I will give it a try again this weekend and see what can I do. Poc o² 21:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've had my share of stitches that just don't seem to work out. I've removed my oppose. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, as promised I've uploaded a new version where I applied a tilt to the left frame. Please, have a look at it and let me know what you think. It looks pretty good to me Poc o² 10:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm happy with that.

Support. I note, though, that it seems a little brighter and less contrasty than the first version. Perhaps, though, this is more like how it was. -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, you could get a better result with hugin --The Photographer (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, do you mean with "better result" that there is still room for improvement? where?. I used Hugin some years ago but moved then to PTGui, and in the meanwhile to LR, as main tool because the results looked better to me. Poc o² 10:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect Hugin to be a bit technical in how it do this task. That means that PTGui is easy to handle. PTGui does HDR natively but I prefer making my HDR with an outside program like Photomatix. --The Photographer (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PTGui can do tonemapping but it can also output HDR files (various formats including 32-bit TIFF). Importing this TIFF to Lightroom takes advantage of the superb tonemapping in that program, which many reckon to be superior to other software, including Photomatix. But if the image is a large stitch, then the 32-bit TIFF can be huge. I've never managed to get Hugin to generate output suitable for HDR work. The software claims to be capable of this, but that area seems to be so full of bugs as to be unusable. Generating panoramas with Lightroom (or Photoshop) is a bit of a gamble. It is convenient and can manage small landscape panoramas, but there are no options at all other than a few projection choices, and it really isn't capable of architectural panoramas. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kikos (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This part of Perú looks like it could be in Nevada or Utah. INeverCry 15:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a really outstanding photo - beautiful and impressive! It has "Featured Picture" written all over it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support More Peruvian landscapes! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karelj (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support though Colin's points seem valid --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 21:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canario-da-terra-verdadeiro.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klagenfurt Viktring Quellenstrasse Strom-Verbundnetz 13022010 1580.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peter II Palace in SPB.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Komargorod pond 2013 G6.jpg