Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2020

File:2017.10.15.-13-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Gewoehnlicher Loewenzahn-Pusteblume.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2020 at 11:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae
Info Using F8. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a fan of this way of having an 'Alt' right from the start, leaving it to the voters to select the best photo. Part of the nominating process is to select the very best photo and nominate it. Going unchecked, we'd end up with constant double, trippel or perhaps quadruple noms from users hedging their bets or not able to make up their mind. --Cart (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't decide. --Hockei (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't decide, either. What's the difference between the two? Also, I always thought of these as seeds, not fruits. What part (other than the stem, roots, etc.) isn't seeds? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DOF is the difference. The motive is more isolated from the background when using F8 instead F13. The price is that the sharpness in the blossom isn't so deep too. --Hockei (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't see enough of a difference to pick between them, so I'll support both. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternativ edit

Info Using F13.
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support More of this one is sharp than the other one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not what I was hoping to see, sorry, the contrast between sharp areas and blurry areas (just below the top) is disturbing, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae

The chosen alternative is: File:2017.10.15.-14-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Gewoehnlicher Loewenzahn-Pusteblume.jpg

File:Man playing an acoustic brazilian guitar (Violão) on Marco Zero Square, Refice, Pernambuco, Brazil.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2020 at 18:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Liking it - very different than what we usually see at FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting and artistic! To me, the crop feels a bit tight, though. --Domob (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong light seems to fit here. Nice sharpness and detail. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's fascinating, any more info on this thing? It seems that Violão is just the regular Brazilian word for guitar, but this is something special. It looks like some kind of modified en:resonator guitar. It has 7 strings instead of the regular 6, and two of them are playing high notes while being located above the bass strings. That's really unusual on a guitar, although both ukulele and five-string banjo have one (but only one) of these. Weird! --El Grafo (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC) PS: Maybe consider re-naming to something like [[:File:Man playing acoustic brazilian guitar (Violão) on Marco Zero Square, Refice, Pernambuco, Brazil.jpg]] ("Men" → "Man") after the nomination has finished and been processed.[reply]

Done Thanks El Grafo, Answering your question, I have been researching this guitar and I think it is not documented, it seems to be a type of guitar manufactured in this State of Brazil. I'm going to try to contact the locals through friends to get more information and later I will give you a feedback. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: After taking a closer look, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a one-of-a-kind piece that was frankensteined together from different parts. It kind of looks like this was a regular classical/spanish guitar in the beginning, but then the sound hole was filled and a larger hole cut to fit in the resonator. There's a noticeable change in wood where the sound hole and surrounding rosette would be expected; and the radius at the bottom of the fret board does not fit the radius of the resonator. The pickguard obviously was added later as well. Dang, I wish I could see the rest of it, I wish I could hear it … --El Grafo (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This type of guitar is quite common, that is, it was not just this guitar, I have seen this type of alteration in other guitars. I took more photos of this person (they are village singers who pass between home and house during Christmas performing varied songs), I also made a recording of the same instrument requesting the appropriate permission. The songs that they sing are generally improvised with phrases related to the moment and that have rhyme, with a jocular touch. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Grafo please, take a look to this guitar, It took me time to remember but I knew I had seen similar guitars before --Wilfredor (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support but per El Grafo. --Cart (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might be biased because I'm totally fascinated by the instrument, but I think this works as a picture. --El Grafo (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wilfredor (and anyone else) please do not re-name files and more around pages with redirects and stuff during a nomination. It will really mess up the codes that organize the FPs. Do all such thing after the nomination is closed. Please! I will clean upp this mess now for you, but do keep that in mind in the future. --Cart (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cart I'm very sorry, I didn't know that this could cause a problem, this is my fault. This will not happen again --Wilfredor (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. That is why El Grafo wrote: "Maybe consider re-naming... ...after the nomination has finished and been processed." It is wise to read all of the advice when it is given. Here is another advice: Write your file names in Spanish (or Portuguese) like many other users do, since you do make mistakes from time to time with the English language. Spanish is a great language and works just as well as English for photo titles. --Cart (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cart, I had not read the full El Grafo comment and after that I always confuse it with "antes" (before on spanish) because its similarity in vowels with "after". I usually put names in English because I think that Google could find them easily for a wider audience, my mistake was to copy the name of the category and try to use it as a file name. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reynisdrangar basalt rocks.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2020 at 06:13:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
Info created & uploaded by JakubFrys - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture with nice light but I don't see anything special about the composition or subject to make it FP. It looks like it might be tilted, although that's hard to tell given that there aren't really any points of reference here. Cmao20 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks almost like a fantasy land, definitely special enough for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine for me (not perfect technically, but certainly good enough especially with this composition and light). --Domob (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the warm light, the textures and shapes of the rocks, the ice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC

I'm quite sure there is no ice there... --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Strongly tilted, nothing is sharp. Not that special either. —kallerna (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what prompted the choice of such a long exposure (8 seconds)? It made the sea look very weird and unnatural, especially the strange lines on the bottom. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - That's not ice? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The south coast of Iceland doesn't freeze even in winter, and this was taken at the end of May. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The white is guano, bird droppings. Bird colonies in places like this always "paint" the rocks white. Like in this case. Category added. --Cart (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was seeing streaks in the ice. Oh well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long exposure photo (8s) so the "streaks in the ice" are just birds flying, illuminated by the low rising sun. They become "bird streaks", same as light streaks in other photos. Things always get a bit strange at long exposure. --Cart (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With that not being ice, I feel like the photo has a misleading appearance and I'm not that happy about it anymore, so I've crossed out my previous supporting vote and will consider whether to vote against or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to Oppose on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi there and thanks for the nomination and the discussion. All the white spots in the picture are actually seagulls and a few other kinds of birds. I chose longer exposure because some of them were flying all around the frame of the photo, even quite close to the lens. Having shorter times, there were many visible trajectories and wierd blurred spots. So just 2 clarify :) -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too irritating with the bright streaks (even on front of the rocks). Contrast too harsh. --Kreuz schnabel 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't understand, why it was really needed to expose 8 sec. Also (or therefore) nothing really sharp. Halo around the right rock. -- -donald- (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hwy US101 Oregon Arch Rock Point 03.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 10:58:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc -- Dirtsc (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very pretty, but check carefully for dust spots. There's a big one in the upper middle of the sky toward the left. You also might consider de-noising a bit, and I'm not sure about the sharpness of the rocks, though that may be a question of depth of field. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ikan Kekek: Dust spot removed, thanks for the hint. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. It's a good photo, but I'm not sure it's an FP, per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To me, it just feels like the plants are in the way. I'm also not quite impressed by the overall level of sharpness. It doesn't look like one of the best images on Commons to me.--Peulle (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. The plants are distracting to me. The scene might be an FP without them and if the rocks are (then) sharper. --Domob (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, plus strange artifacts on the rocks and trees. Looks as if the pic had been saved once at low JPEG quality. --Kreuz schnabel 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a pretty scene and I see what you were going for but the plants seem more in the way than adding anything to the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Would have been supportable if the plants hadn't reached into the rocks' space. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solaris grapes in Chateaux Luna vineyard 24.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2020 at 08:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Vitaceae
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support is it potable? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. This photo series was taken a bit before harvest (as opposed to this) since I wanted the grapes to still be on the branches. This very tiny vineyard makes some 100 bottles each year. --Cart (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really special light for seeing the interior of the grapes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, but the composition is IMO cluttered. Common subject, the photo should be more extraordinary. —kallerna (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the jungle-like atmosphere in the photo, it makes the vineyard look rich and fertile, and you get all these shades of green. --Cart (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do like unusual photos. This also requires a certain amount of courage.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a light. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Kallerna but that's really a nice use of the light and translucency of the grape - Benh (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna, too, I'm afraid Poco a poco (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support per Benh (I'd have suggested cropping in tighter on the bunch at left, but this one's a pretty small image to begin with and what would be left would not be big enough, I'm afraid). Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's 4,928 × 2,772 pixels. That's small? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's cropped due to tilt and composition, so it's not full original size. --Cart (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, but my point is that it's not small. Sorry that wasn't clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meiræ 18:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the bottom crop; there shouldn't be such a bright grape so close to the bottom edge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Селение Ний.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 13:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Russia
Info A misty and atmospheric picture showing Vainakh tower architecture, a kind of construction often found in Ingushetia and Chechnya. As well as having plenty of value to the project, it's good quality and well composed. Please note that the leaning of the tower on the right is not perspective distortion, it actually looks like this: see this image for another example of odd-looking leaning towers of this kind. created by Altushkin - uploaded by Altushkin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a tiny bit soft, but certainly a very interesting and moody picture. --Domob (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Domob. Minor point, but something should be done about the red-linked WLM category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The red category is automatically linked to/created by the Russian WLM template system and I don't think we can fiddle with it. --Cart (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any way to turn it into a blue link? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, it is such an ambiguous number, it would be totally meaningless. It comes from the monument ID for those monuments. However, there are plenty of other countries with similar numbers, even the same, so we'd end up with a category of monuments from around the world with that specific number and they'd have nothing in common save that number. It is a bug created by WLM Russia when they made their template, so perhaps one of our Russian users can talk to them and fix this. --Cart (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine! --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition emphasizing the relationship between the foreground and background elements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --Kreuz schnabel 06:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charadrius bicinctus 2 - Boat Harbour.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 13:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Charadriidae_(Plovers)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not sure how I feel about there being bokeh in the foreground as well as the background, but the sharp slice that includes the plover is excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To my own surprise it makes me feel proud to have JJ Harrison here. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely work as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. Yann (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Charadriidae_(Plovers)

File:Palacio de Comunicaciones, Plaza de Cibeles, Madrid, España, 2017-05-18, DD 29-31 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 20:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Transept of Palace of Communications, Cybele Square, Madrid, Spain. The Eclecticism-style palace, inaugurated in 1909, is now occupied by Madrid City Council, serving as the city hall. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow.--Ermell (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 15:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a CPU :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Württemberg 50000 Mark.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 18:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info An extraordinary fine design for the Hyperinflation in 1923, in which those banknotes lost their value within a few weeks or even days. Issued by the Württembergische Notenbank in Stuttgart, reproduced from an original banknote, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05.
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice design that illustrates a sad episode in history. Cmao20 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Clavulinopsis sulcata - Lane Cove River.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2020 at 08:55:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Clavariaceae_(Coral_Fungus)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop see notice. --Hockei (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this crop was chosen by author and I think it's good. --Ivar (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The space and (blurred) thinks right an left are superfluous and disturb me. But not quite enough for opposing. On the other hand I wonder why it is accepted by other users in this case. --Hockei (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I might prefer the suggested crop, but in that case, I'd expect to vote for both versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd also prefer a slightly different crop, but it is fine nevertheless (and we should indeed honour the author's choice on the crop in this case). --Domob (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support I agree with Hockei about cropping in further. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 15:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really special shape and color -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family_:_Clavariaceae_(Coral_Fungus)

File:Glecksteinhütte front 20200121.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2020 at 16:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This hut is quite interesting. It was built in the early 1900s in a nature and mountain-like area close to Zurich (so workers in Zurich could enjoy the mountain feeling without the need to go far away to the higher Alps). The location right on that cliff is really special. At present day, the hut is strongly in danger of collapsing / falling down (and access is forbidden for security reasons). --Domob (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this view of the hut, and especially also the mood created by the foggy day. --Domob (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed image. Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's my home --Killarnee (T•R•P) 04:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a little hut in bad weather and dull light. The location is a bit unusual, but I don't find the photo outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Château de Chenonceau et Jardin de Diane de Poitiers de nuit.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2020 at 21:21:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Ant°AM - uploaded by Ant°AM - nominated by Ant°AM -- Ant°AM (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ant°AM (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The composition seems restful until you notice the random people there, taking photos and whatever. Then it's not so peaceful. The view at the twilight before dawn might be nicer? (If you can get there then.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment, thank you! The picture was taken in summer 2016 during an event organized at nightfall, so people are walking in the garden. It must be nice at dawn, but I'm not sure whether the place is open for visiting early in the summer -- Ant°AM (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The people are indeed a bit disturbing, but this is nevertheless clearly a great picture! --Domob (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom crop --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the picture should be cropped (and resized to 16/9) to remove the bottom? I'm open to this idea, but I think the garden (and illuminated trees) add something to the atmosphere -- Ant°AM (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The composition at the bottom looks pretty random. Maybe you can improve it cutting the trees in a different way --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I agree with the crop suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leiobunum 2019-08-27 P8275854 PSD.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2020 at 12:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Opiliones
Info Daddy longlegs on a zinnabar blossom in a garden in Bamberg, Bavaria, Germany. Stack from 24 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the grain, the highlights, the flower in the background being cut, there's just too much to wow me here.--Peulle (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really wish the flower weren't cut off, but the detail on the spider especially makes it FP for me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good detail, but per Peulle. --Ivar (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Extremely high image quality as per your usual at the moment. But I do feel that it just looks odd that the flower is cut off. I know that the daddy-longlegs is the main subject but the flower being cut is just wrong somehow. Cmao20 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it with the flower being cut off. It's different, yet it doesn't bother me. I can still grasp the overal shape of it and I can focus what's the image about: the spider. If only the poor guy had 8 legs! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture of a daddy longleg --Llez (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is too far below for me. I would probably crop even more above. Also the picture is too grainy in my eyes. --Hockei (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, dull light and colors and cluttered composition. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Fischer.H (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy for me, maybe due to oversharpening, plus the composition issues mentioned above. --Kreuz schnabel 21:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney (AU), Coast, New Zealand sea lions -- 2019 -- 3489.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2020 at 13:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#New South Wales
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is nice. --Cart (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sea lions not very sharp, violet CAs along the foam and the foam itself partly overexposed; correctable? --Llez (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try - tomorrow. Thank you. The conditions weren't very easy on a swaying boat, but the issues should be improvable. --XRay ^talk 07:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~but it would be better with the CAs corrected.~~ Cmao20 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Cmao20 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You're right. Tomorrow. Today I have no access to my files. --XRay ^talk 14:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some CA still left at the right, and unsharp at left, but as a whole this works. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Llez, Cmao20, and Daniel Case: I've made some improvements including removing CAs. --XRay ^talk 05:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's make it seven. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 15:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK now --Llez (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Australia#New South Wales

File:Чернігів Церква Михайла та Федора Весна 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2020 at 20:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Ukraine
Info The Church of St. Michael and Theodore, Chernihiv. This church, with its interesting pseudo-Byzantine dome, was constructed between 1801 and 1808, in memory of Prince Michael of Chernihiv and Boyar Fyodor who were tortured under the Mongol domination of Russia for refusing to do pagan rites. Another high-quality shot from WLM Ukraine, which seems a cut above many other WLM competitions in the quality of winning material. Created by Nomad0212 - uploaded by Nomad0212 - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please remove the several dust spots (birds) in the sky --Llez (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vivid yellows and white at the centre embedded in greenery and both skylit and watery blues above and below. A fine arrangement of primary colours set in a very impressive left-right, bottom-top, and even diagonal symmetry. An interesting building in its natural surroundings. Yes indeed, a worthy candidate. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ --Cvmontuy (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid vote. Closed already -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polypedates macrotis.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2020 at 13:29:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Rhacophoridae_(Shrub_Frogs)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The amphibian has too many blurred parts for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Famberhorst. DOF problem as almost always. --Hockei (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red-whiskered bulbul (সিপাহি বুলবুলি).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2020 at 23:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pycnonotidae_(Bulbuls)
Info created by Nafis Ameen - uploaded by Nafis Ameen - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice, but considering the exceptional quality of bird FPs, I don't think it's sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I think the quality is OK, it's not pinpoint sharp but it's good enough for me. The main issue I see is with the composition. The crop is too tight at the bottom, with no room at all between the red flower and the edge of the frame. Overall, not enough to support, not enough to oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to contact the author on Instagram --Andrei (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info I was able to obtain a higher resolution of the photo (but not a better crop) --Andrei (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's probably sharp enough at this resolution, so I've crossed out my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other way round for me, I'm afraid. The new version is IMO inferior to the previous one. When downsized to 3000x2000px across (same size as the original) it now looks noisy and oversharpened, plus the crop is even tighter than before. I think I would have to Oppose this version. Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality, looks like the 24mpix version is just an upscale of the 6mpix one. --A.Savin 04:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Without prejudice to other arguments, the bottom crop is too tight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018.04.02.-09-Viernheimer Heide-Viernheim--Blauschwarze Holzbiene-Maennchen.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2020 at 13:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family : Apidae (Bumble Bees, Honey Bees, Carpenter Bees, Cuckoo Bees, Orchid Bees, and Stingless Bees)
Info I've chosen this picture because of the visible proboscis. If it's good for you, I have no idea. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but imho it's not very appealing composition. --Ivar (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as good as the existing bee-FPs. —kallerna (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not exceptional recording. -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:20180816 Hopfensee AllgaeuerAlpen DSC00510 HK PtrQs.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2020 at 18:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Germany
Info Lake Hopfensee and the nearby village, together with the Ammergauer Alps and Allgäuer Alps, in Bavaria, Germany. A beautiful panorama under nice light and with lots of details to explore. created by PtrQs - uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --XRay ^talk 18:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't seen the stitching problem. Waiting for fix now. --XRay ^talk 17:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Gutsy to include the sun, I like that. --Cart (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The obvious seam in the water on the ~~left~~ right down side is technically not excellent. --Milseburg (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please indicate it with an image notation, because I can't find it. I'm not as experienced with pano stitching as you are. --Cart (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a note. See above. --Milseburg (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PtrQs: , is there any chance you could fix that? Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I somehow missed that and have temporarily crossed out my supporting vote. However, it's on the right side (the "other left"). I make those kinds of mistakes all the time and often still need to feel with my hands to remember which side is really left and right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks Milseburg, it was on the right side, that explains it. I'll wait and see what PtrQs has to say/do about it. --Cart (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really meant the other left. Obviously I have the problem, that I have two left hands as we say in German. In English it means to have one’s fingers all thumbs, I guess. --Milseburg (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For now until the stitching error is fixed. Otherwise it's nice, lovely light and composition. --Podzemnik (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending resolution of stitching error. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmao20: I'm working on the problem - but it will be difficult: no two waves are ever the same - and even if they were monochromatic, the adjoining pictures had to be taken at multiple time distance of wavelength divided by group velocity ;-) --PtrQs (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PtrQs: Understandable. I have a couple of panoramas myself that look good at first but will never make it to Commons because of similar issues. Would you prefer me to keep this nomination open, or to withdraw and renominate if/when you've got the issue fixed? Cmao20 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I think it would be less complicated to withdraw this nomination and to renominate when PtrQs has had the time to fix things. Cmao20 (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homeless sleeping on Paulista Avenue, São Paulo city, Brazil.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2020 at 18:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting technique to have the subject in color and the rest of the photo in black & white. Would you like to say more about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question, people are used to ignoring the homeless, people go around them without looking or with a look accustomed to poverty that becomes transparent. With this effect of selective black and white, I seek to highlight what is ignored by the majority, but that is always there even though we want to look elsewhere. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I perceived this, too. I find this documentary photo moving, so I

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good idea, your reasoning for selective B&W makes lots of artistic sense. Cmao20 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! The tight crop at the top of the bus is a bit unfortunate, but doesn't spoil the overall picture. --Domob (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not so sure about this. A good effort but aside from the selective color, the composition is not that strong. Even documentary photos need good compo to be excellent. --Cart (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although I agree with Cart about the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Watzendorf Kirche Decke 20191006-RM-064002 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2020 at 23:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Ceiling in the Protestant church of Watzendorf in the district of Coburg. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm feeling like the ceiling frescoes are too dark for this to be an FP, but I'm willing to entertain arguments for why I could be wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you're right. I have made some changes.Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Big improvement to me. I hope the new light is realistic, in that a brighter day could produce it. I would think so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good, high resolution image that IMO isn't worth nitpicking. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special photo for me. It is a pity that the organ pipes are not completely vertical.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2018.04.06.-03-Bad Duerkheim--C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2020 at 13:31:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Beautiful butterfly, not as minutely detailed as some of your lepidoptera photos but a small butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imho not the composition nor detail are outstanding if compared to other FP-s of this category. --Ivar (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image overall but not IMO one of your best. The detail at full-res is good but not great, and I don't much like the huge dead leaf in the right-hand side of the frame. There's also an odd bluish artefact (lens flare?) going on in the top right corner. Cmao20 (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like lens flares from raindrops. This one is half behind a blade of grass. --Hockei (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The disembodied lens flare bothers me, now that it's been pointed out. The problem is that the viewer can't tell what it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare --Hockei (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018.04.06.-05-Bad Duerkheim--Fruehlings-Scharbockskraut.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 09:27:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info The background is water of a small creek. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What causes the slightly darker haloes around each of the petals? Cmao20 (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no haloes. The edges are rolled up and there is shadow. There are also colour differences. Partly the underside of the leaf can be seen there. --Hockei (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support in that case. Cmao20 (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm having trouble thinking of this as an FP, given the DoF. Was it impossible to have a slightly deeper DoF that made the petals sharp? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Platax pinnatus.jpeg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 22:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Class_:_Actinopterygii_(Ray-finned_Fish)
Info: all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. —kallerna (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: brightened --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fine for me. Again, good quality considering ISO 800 was used. Cmao20 (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's difficult to avoid random crops of fish somewhere in an acquarium photo, but the one in the lower left bugs me. I'm also unconvinced the fish are sharp enough, even though they are of course under water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too grainy/noisy and unclear composition, shallow DoF. I don’t see anything outstanding here. --Kreuz schnabel 06:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not exceptional recording. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Small lappet moth on ivy 1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2020 at 14:06:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lasiocampidae (Eggars)
Info I've had help identifying this moth, so I hope they got it right, otherwise I'd be happy for a correction. My own moth knowledge is limited to "it's cute and looks strange". All by me, -- Cart (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the pleasant and unusual composition. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's certainly an interesting creature, but we've had sharper pics of moths and butterflies at FPC, so I'm torn as to whether this one passes the bar. Cmao20 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like this more if you cropped out the leaves on the left (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it might be better to nominate the other version of this scene since the moth is sharper in that one, and perhaps crop it to square. I just liked this landscape compo with the branch and the moth at about 1/3. --Cart (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meiræ 00:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ugly background in my view, blurry leaves and dull light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the moth asleep? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's sleeping. That sheltered corner of the house seems to be irresistible to moths and many of them come to rest there during the day. When I see one I find beautiful or strange, I take photos of it. My camera isn't good enough to do "real" bug photography out in the wild, so I take what I can get. At least we get shots of them for the Wiki, even if they don't make FP. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's an unusual FPC submission, because you can't see the moth's eyes. I agree that it's an interesting composition. I haven't decided whether the moth is sharp enough to support this nomination, though people should keep in mind that it's a small moth: per w:Small lappet moth, its size is only 35-40 mm. How true are the colors? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are as true as I could get them. I made the first edits on the photos when the moth was still there so I could compare. Perhaps the other photo would be better wrt the moth, as in my reply to Daniel above, since it's sharper. I did this stacked series first, but then realized I might not have taken enough photos and the second series has twice as many photos. After that I lost the light and some time after that, the moth woke up and flew away. I just liked this compo best. --Cart (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The two lines in the background are distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews, it was a bit of a long-shot with the lines. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peugeot505SR-MDP.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2020 at 23:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

30th years old Peugeot 505 SR still driving

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 23:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wow is the car, 30th years old still driving, may be few of them around the world -- Ezarateesteban 23:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing amazing to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good resolution and likely QI but it doesn't impress me or amaze me. If you have to explain or justify why it has wow, it probably doesn't . Also there is quite a lot of blue/purple CA that I think should be dealt with before a possible QI nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow for me either, no artistic composition or anything remarcable. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; also the too-cool white balance. It's time to withdraw this nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ezarateesteban 12:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 050-054 PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 20:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Dried out lake in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted? —kallerna (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say, —kallerna, the right side (Big Daddy Dune) is definitely higher than the left one, and the people walking on the crest of the dunes look straight to me. Do you see a reference in the picture that definitely shows a tilt? --Poco a poco (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tilt is obvious when you look at the mountains in the background. —kallerna (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Very nice view and well-done panorama (stitching these curvy lines without too many good precise reference points available is quite hard). I find it a bit soft and the light (particularly on the dunes in the middle and distance, towards Dead Vlei) too harsh, though. --Domob (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic landscape! --Ivar (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought this might be too similar to some of your other dune panoramas, but looking through your FP category there aren't any others quite like it in terms of composition. I guess it is a bit soft in places as Domob says, but this is a 111mpx panorama so it's not worth being that picky. Cmao20 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support In generally I don't really like panorama pictures. But this is pretty good for my eyes . --Hockei (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very obviously tilted. - Benh (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that your comment is your particular answer to the question I made to kallerna above. I'd still like to see proof of that tilt somewhere, if you don't mind. Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, it's tilted. It's sad an experienced photographer like you can't see that at first glance (and it's sad so many people don't notice). I like discussing technical stuffs, but not trivial ones. The farther dunes can be considered a good reference and are very tilted. The pond can be used as reference as well. - Benh (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that long shadow of the guy walking across the sort-of bridge between the two dunes ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's cool. Thanks for the hint. --Hockei (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps one way to address the harsh light that Domob mentioned would be to even out the sky gradient, so that the hotspot in the middle is not as eye-catching (e.g. by applying a couple of positive graduated filters in the corners - with a colour range mask to exclude the dunes - and then a top to bottom negative graduated filter - to create an even sky gradient). I find this technique useful to minimise the uneven sky issue in harsh light panoramas (e.g. like this one). PS: I think Poco a poco went to great lengths to avoid perspective issues in the stitching process: to my eyes, both the bystanders on the left and on the right seem to be upright. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ per Benh. The horizon in the distance seems 2.5° ccw tilted to me. Coordinates are missing to check this more closely. The people are far too small to check something on their upright gait. Otherise very good, but the alignment failed so far. --Milseburg (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milseburg: There you are, I added the coordinates --Poco a poco (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The desert landscape changes the relief relatively quickly. But back and forth moving dunes don't justify such a tilt. I slightly changed the coordinates for a calculated panorama to the Big Daddy Dune to show that the horizon is not so tilted anywhere in that area. --Milseburg (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Milseburg, what do you think now? --Poco a poco (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tilt has not been corrected. —kallerna (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 15:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Clearly tilted to me also (2.3 degrees CCW, so not a little bit). Very nice otherwise. But now the mountains of the background seem to slide to the left, and the level of the water of the pond is not horizontal. I imagine this as a poster, this would not be very natural. Fixable, tough -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain The tilt has been fixed but only Milseburg got the notification. My comment above can be right or wrong, depending on Milseburg's opinion, and wether the change is reverted or not before the end of the voting period. Thus I'm just going to stop helping this candidature now -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin: as Milseburg seems to be an expert in horizons I opted for asking him first before I ping everything. Anyhow, it will unlikely have an influence in the outcome of this nom Poco a poco (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Expert in horizons", lol. Never heard about that skill Anyway the candidature is closed now. Finished -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I almost missed it. It is better that way and seems realistic to me. --Milseburg (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David e Golia - Pescatore che stende le reti mentre la nave mercantile sosta al pontile.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2020 at 10:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info created by [PROPOLI87|]] - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:Template:PROPOLI87|]] -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this nom floating around out there, it hadn't been added to the list. Let's see if it garners enough attention from initial voters to have the voting period extended. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's actually quite a good photo, and I like the composition, but the posterisation in the sky (visible even in thumbnail) precludes it from FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with Cmao20, nothing wrong with the composition, but the technical quality of the photo paired with its rather small size and missing Exif is keeping it from becoming an FP for me. I encourage the author to try getting the technical side better in the photos and nominate them at COM:QIC first to fine-tune photographic skills. --Cart (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, on exactly the same pro and con bases. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but per others. Composition would be better with the boats forming a diagonal line IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 22:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. I think it's time to uncomment the close. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ранок на Мангупі.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2020 at 13:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created & uploaded by Vian - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could someone who speaks Ukrainian (perhaps Ввласенко since it looks like Vian isn't active now) please provide a good English description. The auto-translate yields some rather strange suggestions. --Cart (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support What paradise is it! --Wilfredor (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful image but probably downsampled. This is 10mpx and the camera is capable of 24mpx, so a reduction of more than half. Still support because since the author is apparently not active there isn't much chance of getting a full resolution version. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm torn on this, per Cmao20. Try looking at this at 200% of its size. It looks bad at that size. What do the rest of you think about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice picture and composition, and I think the resolution is fine. It would be better with higher resolution, of course. --Domob (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ultimately, I agree with everyone. There's enough in this composition to be interesting to look at for a while, and it's not a small file although if it's downsized, I hope we eventually see the full-size file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it is not forbidden to close your own nomination, it is usually considered polite to let someone else do it. It is also good form to wait for the FPCBot to close the nom, especially when it's a fifth-day closing so nothing untoward happens. I can't see why you are in such a hurry to be able to make a new nomination, this is not an FP assembly line. --Cart (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your last sentence as standing with politeness standards. Tomer T (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Field and silage bales in Övre Tuntorp 3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2020 at 17:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Sweden
Info "She-Who-Shoots-Silage-Bales" strikes again. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. Cmao20 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, great composition, colors, and lighting. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. This is really a particularly outstanding artwork. The curvy lines in the field, the rhythm of the space between the bales, the light, the trees and hill in the background, etc., and as I continue looking, it gets better and better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and lovely light! --Domob (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support maar ik ben wel de tel kwijtgeraakt.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vintage Cart, per Ikan. There are plenty of silage bales in fields around where I live given the season (i.e., not now); I'll have to shoot some someday. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy hunting! :-) There are a lot of bales in the fields right now around here, for a sad reason. Due to global warming, we haven't had real winter so far. It should be around -10 C with frequent dips to -15 to -25 C and white snow. Instead we've had around +6 C and constant rain. The fields turned to mud fields before farmers had a chance to collect the last bales. They can't get to them since they risk getting the tractors stuck in the now very deep mud. I could probably get some really dystopian photos of the whole thing, maybe I should try, if only for awareness about small things affected by the climate change. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have had much the same, with a little snow (largely now remaining only in areas where it was piled up) that has not gotten very deep and than gets rained on (well, at least the aquifers are not hurting). There are some silage bales around ... they look interesting on fields of golden winter grass, I guess. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice compo Poco a poco (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wrapped bales are particular.

Support -- PROPOLI87 In Italy, they are packaged in rolls re-wrapped with a net and left free on the sides. Thank you for showing this particularity.

They look like giant sugar cubes!

Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Agriculture#Sweden

File:Lake Sylvester during the sunrise, New Zealand.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 09:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Tasman_(Te_Tai-o-Aorere)
Info All by me. I like how the photo shows different natural features: bogs, tussocks, shrubs, alpine lake and mountains but still feels compact. Also, I like the light. PS: We already have this FP of the lake but it's quite different (different light, composition, day...). -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition of this one grows on you as you look at it more. Cmao20 (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so convinced, to be honest, neither by the compo nor by the light Poco a poco (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image, very good sharpness, excellent for me -- Spurzem (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bushes on the right side take up quite a lot of space in the picture but are not very interesting. The light is also not optimal for me. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is this light a sunrise, especially since the timestamp puts it in the evening (and probably well before sunset, given that it's summer). Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't really speak to me, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alright, this bird is not going to fly. Thanks for the reviews my online friends. Podzemnik (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /--Podzemnik (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Yaksha supporting one of the Two Golden Chedi of Wat Phra Kaew, Bangkok, Thailand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2020 at 02:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info We have a blue monster featured since 2014, however the light here is softer, the resolution higher, and the picture not retouched. Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 22:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chrysococcyx osculans - Glen Davis.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2020 at 06:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Cuculidae_(Cuckoos)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 10:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, yes, please. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 22:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super crisp. --Peulle (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 00:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The crop is imbalanced IMO; should be framed a little more to the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Cuculidae_(Cuckoos)

File:Auto op de Place de l'Étoile, in de koplamp is de weerspiegeling van de Arc de T, Bestanddeelnr 191-0354.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2020 at 18:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Willem van de Poll - uploaded by Mr.Nostalgic - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very fine composition. Somewhat grainy, but acceptable considering its age. --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution could be better, good photograph for the year made --XRay ^talk 17:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. I like that the photographer chose black-and-white as I think it works better in this case. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting reflection in the headlight. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not big enough IMO to be in Category:Reflected photographers, though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Twisted Plumeria tree trunk overgrowing the steep stone stairs of Wat Phou temple, Champasak, Laos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2020 at 20:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created & uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find! Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered composition, shadows/highlights adjusted too much. —kallerna (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect handling of difficult lighting --Kreuz schnabel 21:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kreuz. I love that this used to illustrate Ent. Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is indeed a bit cluttered in the composition, but I like it and it is a very nice view. --Domob (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a bit too much luminance at parts but the composition and light are great. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great motif to notice and photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Tomer T. I like this picture and would certainly have nominated it myself. Now I'm honored and grateful. Thanks also for the previous votes -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kreuz. --Aristeas (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 00:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teotihuacán, México, 2013-10-13, DD 21.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2020 at 20:09:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Mexico
Info Overview of the Avenue of the Dead and the Pirámide de la Luna ("Pyramid of the Mond") seen from Pirámide del Sol ("Pyramid of the Sun"), Teotihuacan, Mexico. Teotihuacan is known today as the site of many of the most architecturally significant Mesoamerican pyramids built in the pre-Columbian Americas and is the most important and largest pre-Columbian city in Mexico. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm having trouble with things being cut off by the bottom and right crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow for me; the subject is too small in the frame, the road is too horizontal to be a good leading line, and there is too much empty sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per King. It is a great picture, but just not striking enough for FP in my opinion. --Domob (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Good sharp shot of a fascinating place but I feel it would be better if the sky were less featureless. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good shot, but a wow is undetectable, sorry. -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting nomination to consider, when I have a lot of experience with my own take on this view almost two years later, along with some other Wikimedians going on that post-Wikimania Wiki Loves Pyramids trip. I really thought I could get an FP nom out of that day, but for a variety of reasons that hope faded as I got home and got to processing them (although some pictures of mine from that day, to be fair, are now QIs). One reason was that this view is so easily available to anyone with a camera who reaches the top of the Piramide del Sol that it would really take something amazing to make one of those views stand out from the rest. I didn't see it in mine and I don't see it here, I'm sorry to say.
(Meanwhile, this picture I snapped that day of another Pyramid-Loving Wikimedian using his selfie stick (I still have trouble typing that last part with a straight face) atop the pyramid has become the preferred image for "man ostentatiously using his selfie stick" not only on a number of Wikipedias and Wiktionaries but elsewhere on the Internet as well. I suppose I should nominate it for VI). Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:BMW Welt, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-04-22, DD 19.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2020 at 19:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Night view of the BMW Welt, Munich, Germany. The BMW Welt, inaugurated in 2007, is a combined exhibition, delivery, adventure, museum and event venue. It has a solar panel system with 800 kW of power installed on the roof and is the most visited tourist attraction in Bavaria. Note: it is the second nom of this image after I made some improvements and the first nom was close to be successfull. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question It has a "solar system"? I assume you mean it has a system of solar panels, or does it have a section used as a planetarium. --Cart (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Cart, yes, of course, I meant solar panels, I corrected it above. Poco a poco (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! (It would be even better with geolocation, though.) --Domob (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good QI, but I'm missing wow effect. Dark sky is quite dull. Imho blue hour light would have been more appropriate. --Ivar (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Domob: Done geodata added Poco a poco (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar + IMO it's too dark. Technically really nice. —kallerna (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good resolution and quality as usual but this is not one of your best. You already have a similar FP of this building at night, which has a better composition. This one isn't as interesting to me. It's also a shame that there's some colour banding in the shadows, which is, I gather, a common problem with Canon cameras. Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. It's a great angle, but there's just too many other objects in the frame trying to take attention away from the buildings. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it and I regard the above criticism as exaggerated.--Christof46 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skulls Teotihuacan2020.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2020 at 10:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a photo I am used to see here and a good sharp focus to the subjects --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scary stuff... Cmao20 (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A good quality photo that is striking mainly for its subject. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petrified dune - Valley of Fire.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2020 at 16:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Nevada
Info: petrified dune evolved from a Jurassic desert and composed of the Aztec Sandstone. Pensive geology professor for scale. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nothing much at thumb but impressive at full scale. A bit too much noise reduction (could be dialed back) but the file is big so I won't be picky. I see that you took El Grafo's advice and kept one geologist handy for scale. --Cart (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the noise reduction is too much for me. It's an interesting subject but the details are just too smudgy at full size; I also find it possibly a bit underexposed. A better process from RAW might convince me to support. Cmao20 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I wasn't shooting in RAW 8 years ago... --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Striking motif for sure, but I can't accept concentric posterization halos in the sky above it. I would have voted to decline it on QIC, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject (although I'm not 100% sold on the composition), but indeed the technical issues (looks like too much denoising / sharpening) make this not an FP for me. --Domob (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Yes, the bad ridgeline from the denoising is not such a large part of the image ... until you look at the portion in shadow, where it's too far gone at present to forgive. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan -- Karelj (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parque estatal Chugach, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 80.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2020 at 16:07:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_States
Info View of a glacier from the top in Chugach State Park, Alaska, United States. Note: there are already 4 FPs of this park and this one is the closest to this FP candidate. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but I'd say that this one is even closer to this FP candidate than the one you link to above, and has a better composition. Cmao20 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some CA should be reduced.--Ermell (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 -- Karelj (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to support, but there seem to be some blown areas on the left side. Edit those if you think it's warranted, though I might support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the way, there are 5 FPs of this park; you didn't think of this one because it's a green picture taken on September 1. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Agree with Cmao20, I oversaw that one, this version is pretty close to that one. Will though reduce CA and blown areas anyhow. Poco a poco (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tettigonia viridissima Tagetes-20190906-RM-130430.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2020 at 23:02:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Bush-cricket on a marigold flower. Focus stack of 11 frames: All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had this on my possible nominations list and probably would have gotten around to it eventually if you hadn't. Very impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive Ermell. You've raised the bar for bug and flower photos for about 3 steps higher. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I like that you're also showing the lower part of the plant in the background as it provides context. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary work, even getting the tips of the antennae into sharp focus. Cmao20 (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All along sharp, good job! Poco a poco (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only so sharp, but also so beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:East Temple - Overlook Trail.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2020 at 22:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Utah
Info: The East Temple seen from the Canyon Overlook Trail, Zion National Park; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's a little bit over processed, not very sharp and the light is quite harsh. The photo could have passed in 2012 when it was taken but now the standards have moved up a bit. Still a nice photo though :) Sorry, --Podzemnik (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik's remarks on overprocessing. Maybe redevelop the photo from the RAW? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik. The "enhance contrast" slider got a few little light-years too far :) --Kreuz schnabel 11:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The same issue that I have with a lot of your old photos from America. Beautiful composition but the detail at full-res is not sufficient, and it seems oversharpened/given too much contrast to compensate. Your current work is a lot better than these old shots. Cmao20 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik; I think the nominator should consider withdrawing at this point with five opposes saying this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Örekilsälven downstream from Kviström in Munkedal 1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2020 at 13:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Sweden
Info View in spring over Örekilsälven downstream from Kviström in Munkedal Municipality, Sweden. Örekilsälven is a good place för salmon fishing. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the sky can be a little bluer. But nice picture for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is taken straight south in the direction of the sun, so the sky will be very bright. I didn't want to add too much artificial coloring to the scene. --Cart (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Cart but this one isn't interesting enough for me to support at FP. It looks like a lovely place, but the light is not exceptional and I don't like the crop at the right, it seems a bit arbitrarily cut off and I'd prefer to see a wider panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might be on the right track. I wanted to focus on the river flowing south, that's why I didn't do a full pano. I've cropped it a bit to get that part in the middle and balance the photo better. Also 'ping' Famberhorst about the change. --Cart (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This change does make it a better photo, the composition looks a lot more focussed now. But I'm still not sure it's extraordinary enough for FP. I could go down to the local boating lake and take a pic that looks a lot like this one, hence it doesn't really wow me. (It's obviously QI though.) Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - I respect this photo, but it's not quite a great composition for me, although it certainly has some elements I like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Ikan. Nice picture and lovely spot, but not special enough for FP. --Domob (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20 Poco a poco (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Okeydokey, thanks guys! I'll have to return there when the light makes some magic. It's a place worth visiting many times. --Cart (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney (AU), Royal Botanic Gardens -- 2019 -- 3082.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 06:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#New_South_Wales
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too bright, with blown-out spots on the grass, and the sky is not interesting. Nice tree, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps a bit too bright. But that can be corrected. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reduce brightness as soon as possible. --XRay ^talk 08:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pretty scene and I'd like to go there, but I'm missing any extraordinary in terms of composition. I think you also weren't lucky with the light as it seems quite harsh, probably because of the time of day. Cmao20 (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely better now, but the composition is still too busy and the light not interesting enough for me to consider it an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Ikan Kekek and Cmao20: I'm made some improvements - a little bit darker. --XRay ^talk 16:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's hard to correct such harsh light. The compo also tries to take in too much, too many shapes, it might have been better to concentrate on the central blooming tree. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I regret that while it's improved, it's still too bright for me, the sky still isn't interesting, and I more or less also agree with Cmao20 and Cart on the form. I don't oppose complexity, but I don't love the way my eyes move around this picture plane. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mueller Hut with Mt Sefton and Aoraki (Mt Cook) during the sunrise.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 08:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info All by me. It's a panorama of the eastern side of Mt Sefton where you can see a lot of glaciers that reflect the morning sun. On the right you can see Mueller Hut and Aoraki, the highest point of New Zealand. I like the light and the composition. -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful warm light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here there is both, nice compo and ligthing Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 00:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--PierreSelim (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)

File:Trimeresurus albolabris, White-lipped pit viper (female) - Kaeng Krachan National Park (27493423545).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 07:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Viperidae_(Vipers)
Info created by Rushenb, uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for me -- Spurzem (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 00:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such a brilliant green! Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case 🐍 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear FP --Wilfredor (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Image makes my skin slither... --GRDN711 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Viperidae_(Vipers)

File:Facade of the polyhedral glass building The Iceberg, Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2020 at 07:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Japan
Info Facade of the polyhedral glass building The Iceberg, Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan. This building was constructed in 2006 by the Hong Kong real estate company Velox. There are seven floors with an elevator shaft passing through the facade. Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive building, but what I don’t like on the image is the severe distortion of the upper part, clearly visible in the elevator structures. --Kreuz schnabel 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive and well done. --Aristeas (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see that of the elevator (above). But that can be my fault.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it's a bit "top-heavy", but you have choose the lesser of two evils since it's situated between two normal buildings. Without the perspective correction, the whole scene would look bad. It's not as disturbing here as it would be on say a church. --Cart (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vertical distortion, for example cars on bottom look flattened --Wilfredor (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as a good quality photo of an interesting building, but the light maybe isn't the best. Cmao20 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart; I'm amused that the WeWork logo is still visible on an entrance at street level. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Wilfredor - too much distortion for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The composition doesn't work for me. That might or might not be the fault of the architect (I really don't know how another angle might look), but nonetheless, the result is a photo whose composition doesn't work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and Wilfredor. --Gnosis (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is FP-worthy but you were probably too close to it Poco a poco (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't be further. So I would say exactly the contrary (if it's not featured) -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what about higher? Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Private offices in front -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose distortion and overexposed on top. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think the distorsion seems all the more important as the edge at the middle is not horizontal in the architecture (follow the continuity with the red building). Then the difference between the two edges is accentuated. Perspective not corrected it gives that. Maybe my angle was not the best to reveal thesse incredible shapes, I mainly chose this point for the light -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ladinas, Andiast, Resgia Gneida Sägerei (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2020 at 16:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Detail old wood saw.
Info Detail of the machine in the old sawmill, with a beautiful metallic luster on the saw blade.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition feels too random and chaotic for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not an immediate 'wow', but the lines and the finely tuned soft harmonious colors do speak to me. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart, and 7. Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart; there is something special about the colours. --Aristeas (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I might support a similar composition with a less diagonal angle or something. I think what's really bugging me is the cutoff of the log on the bottom, so maybe even backing up a bit would have been enough for me; I can't say for sure unless I saw that picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but the composition doesn't work for me, sorry Famberhorst. --Podzemnik (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know how it could be better. Above we have an image of an automobile wing with a headlight and everyone is enthusiastic. -- Spurzem (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, a plus would have been to photograph it under work with sawdust flying all over the place Poco a poco (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, no wow. -- Karelj (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel, sorry. --Domob (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik. -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File: Mugello circuit gare in corso.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 14:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose\ Nice overview of the track but the wow is missing for me. Is it supposed to be tilted that way? It would be nice to have the exif with info about the shot. I've filled in the FP category for you, please remember that the next time. --Cart (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice sky but per Cart. And the cutoff of the road at the right doesn't help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor overall quality considering the low resolution, and I am pretty sure the curvature on the fence and track in the foreground isn’t real. Nice but still a bit to go for excellence. --Kreuz schnabel 19:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have the impression that the landscape is hanging tilted in the picture and that the line in the foreground is not correct. It also bothers me that both curves are cut off on the outside. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is lovely and very dramatic, but the quality level is not high enough for FP. Thank you for straightening the horizon, but I think the new version has been saved at too high a level of JPEG compression, as the file size is now much lower and I can see JPEG artefacts. Which camera did you use - the EXIF seems to be missing? Overall, I like the composition but I don't think the quality is good enough at this resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Description line says, "Huawei P10lite phone". And it does look like that. --Kreuz schnabel 11:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I'm teaching this FPC newbie some things about FPC on my talk page, such as Exif and other stuff. Info about the camera is added by using the {{Photo Information}} in the 'Summary'. It is taken with a smartphone, so a bit difficult to get high technical level. --Cart (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank W.carter for the advice and know that I appreciate all your criticisms, which will serve to understand and improve myself. PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilsons Promontory National Park (AU), Tidal River -- 2019 -- 1620.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2020 at 16:25:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#Victoria
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info The water is colored by tannins of the tea trees. --XRay ^talk 16:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't stand out from similar landscapes enough for me, and the highlight on the cloud is a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 31

January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per Daniel Case. Needs more wow for FP --GRDN711 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. Not special enough, just a nice landscape shot. --Domob (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GRDN711 --Fischer.H (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To be honest it has loads of wow to me. Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. I don't miss the Wow, whatever it means. -- Spurzem (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Cart (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think it's the blah light over the water that makes this pall to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The large amount of water in the foreground doesn't really contribute to the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GRDN711. -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some colour variants of the Brown Discus (Symphysodon aequifasciatus) edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2020 at 11:02:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and valuable for the project. The sharpness is not quite as good in all the pics; the second and fourth pictures are clearly sharper than the first and third. But I think they all pass the bar since they are all high resolution, and being honest aquarium photos aren't that easy. Cmao20 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The one I'm not sure about is the third one. This would make a great VI set nomination, except that for technical reasons, VI set nominations are no longer accepted (and I don't know what the technical reasons are or how longstanding the problem is; I just see the notice at VIC), and they're also all QIs. It's worth keeping in mind, though, that these fish are typically up to 15.2 centimetres (6 in) long per w:Symphysodon aequifasciatus, and at full size, all of these images are considerably larger than that. I think I will probably eventually support this set, but I have to think further about that one photo, as the rule is that all photos in an FPC set have to be considered FPs on their own in order to support the set. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a fairly small fish (15-23cm). Even though the first photo is not as sharp as the others, I like the idea, resolution and other fish too much not to support it. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nr 1 and 3 are imho not sharp enough, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this actually a set? I imagine that you've approached it based on "A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object.", but is this set showing all possible variations of the subject? Poco a poco (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this nomination doesn't seem valid for a set, like the Nazca lines candidature last July, because of the guidelines : "Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats". Similarly here we have "Some colour variants of a fish". I also miss the captions for each of them -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this nom is quite far and I hardly believe that the set is "complete" I'll opt for Oppose for now, Poco a poco (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not as a set per above. Although I may support the blue one nominated individually -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Question for Llez, Poco a poco and Basile Morin: Does this fish come in other colors than these? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: I'm not an expert and actually I still expect feedback from Llez on that, but it looks like the range of color of this fish is pretty wide Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If those are all in fact true-color photos of this species, this nomination should be voted down as identical in scope to "some breeds of cats". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also these Canidae -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To show all colour variants, you had to nominate hundreds of photos in a set, see here. I didn't know the rule "some breeds..." is not allowed. I will nominate colour variantions separately in future and I hope, that they not will be opposed by the argument "There exists already a FP of this species". I think, it is the best to withdraw the set. So I withdraw my nomination. --Llez (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Euromaidan 2014 in Kyiv. Guard of Maidan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2020 at 08:35:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That wary but tired look coupled with the nicely groomed moustache, makes for an interesting and multi-layered portrait. --Cart (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. A portrait that tells part of the story of the historic events it was taken during. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. --Aristeas (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Sarcococca Hookeriana 25-01-2020. (d.j.b). 05.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2020 at 15:58:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Buxaceae
Info Inconspicuous white scented little flowers of the Sarcococca Hookeriana The evergreen plant blooms and smells in January/February.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 23:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good but wow factor limited to me Poco a poco (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Poco a poco. Good quality and well done but IMHO not enough wow. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Poco -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soltan salt lake.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2020 at 18:05:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've no idea how you managed to mess up the nom code so much, but I've fixed the code for you now. Please be more careful the next time. And again you seems to be relying on other users fixing the categories for you. Very well, I'll do that. Once more. There is no time only a date on the file or Exif, is it a sunset or a sunrise? --Cart (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will oppose this per what is written in the FPC rules: Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: Almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others. There are thousands of pretty sunsets (or sunrises) with reflections on Commons, sorry. It's a nice photo but not outstanding. --Cart (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter: sorry Mrs Carter. thanks you. that's your kind. I Geotagged the picture and I tried to fix categories.I think categorising is aliitle harder than photography. it is sunrise.--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Beautiful sunrise but not special enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vignetting, no metadata, and I miss a rock or something special in the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Pretty photo but it doesn't stand out from the many other sunsets on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Doesn't stand out from other sunrises on Commons, that is. (also note dust spot) Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sukhoi Su-30SM 48 blue(37252722521).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2020 at 15:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by User:Marinaio56 - nominated by AnuJuno -- AnuJuno (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AnuJuno (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice shot, but considering the standard of military aircraft FPs, I'm not that impressed by a plane sitting on the ground.--Peulle (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, dull light, WB off, noisy. Not much wow on my side. --Kreuz schnabel 22:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. --Domob (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo and interesting aircraft but the crop is too tight and the image quality is not that great. Cmao20 (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clothed statues of the Buddha in the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou, Champasak, Laos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2020 at 02:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite an interesting motif, a ruined but functioning temple! And well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)~[reply]

Thanks! This is a very old ruined Khmer Hindu temple (11th century, UNESCO heritage), but still living place, yes! -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good but there are tons of Buddhas all over Asia and I don't see why this one is special, at least from the aesthetics point of view it isn't. Poco a poco (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Light and shadow (in Macau).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 09:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Paulo Leong - uploaded by Paulo Leong - nominated by Pauloleong2002 -- Pauloleong2002 (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pauloleong2002 (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice subject and composition but unfortunately it's not sharp enough. It is very hard to get smartphone photos up to the technical standards for FP. If you have any other photos you consider, please first take them to COM:QIC or COM:CRIT for evaluation. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThank you very much for your opinion mentioned above.--Pauloleong2002 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2020 (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: Not sharp enough, low technical quality. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20190225 Seefeld NK 2719.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2020 at 13:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created & uploaded by Ailura - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is one impressive panning! Ailura clearly knows how to work a camera, still it would be nice to have the Exif data to tell us something about the technical details, please. The file name is also too ambiguous/misguiding and should be better, but after the nom is closed to avoid all the code mess. --Cart (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support way better than I could ever do! —Granada (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tomer T: So this nom is why you closed your own nom as 'featured' without waiting for the FPCBot to do the fifth-day closing. Why the hurry? Ok, it's not forbidden to do so, providing that you did the math correctly with the time, but it's not good form and to be on the safe side with the days, it's best to let the Bot close the nom correctly. Especially your own. Please let the system work for you, no need to push it as hard as you can. --Cart (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the problem. I understand it's your personal choice to wait for the bot, but there's no reason to do so - the nom was closed according to all rules. I also don't see why it's relevant in this discussion, more proper to my talk page for example or FPC talk page, where you can suggest to obligate a wait for the bot. Tomer T (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to this discussion, since you closed the nom to be able to open this nom. I also think it is vital that you as an admin think about what example you are setting by doing so. You may be able do do what is within the rules, but other users, not as experienced as you, might see it fit to follow your example with less good result. There are a lot of things that are not written in the rules of this forum, just good etiquette. --Cart (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just remind that a manual close is still an explicitly mentioned viable option in FPC. I can see why you see it as unwanted practice so I'll avoid it, but maybe we should change the guidelines. Honestly, I don't really see someone using this option wrongfully or abusively, it's just a simple 5 days count, but let it be. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, neither can I at the moment. But having been around this site for a while, and helped clean up a few messes, I've seen how 'creative' people can be when it comes to cutting corners to get stars and awards. That is why I'm wary and value the safer way. And I'm also happy to let it be for now. --Cart (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most impressive in this image is the blurry background! I remember a photo challenge about panning, this one would have been a great candidate! -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, and oddly enough, I kind of agree with Basile on this. It's as if in the instant that the photo was snapped, the ski jumper was still and everything else was moving! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmm pretty sharp for a panning photo. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But unfortunately no metadata --Llez (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ailura always strips the Metadata from her uploads. —Granada (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Short description would be great:) Tournasol7 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you missing? The athlete's name is in the description but I could add some more info as I've been to Seefeld last year as well. --Granada (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Lake Poaka, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2020 at 06:24:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info All by me. It's Lake Poaka. The picture was taken during the sunrise. I quite like the light and the composition. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)

File:Железнодорожный вокзал в г. Невинномысске.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2020 at 08:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info created by Zeydulaaaa - uploaded by Zeydulaaaa - nominated by PawełMM -- PawełMM (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PawełMM (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a pretty decent shot, but nothing really extraordinary.--Peulle (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the people on the photo, each doing their own thing, make it look like a work of art. A shame there isn't a higher level of detail. Tomer T (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me like Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose There is definitely something in Tomer T's idea that everyone in this photo is doing different things and thus that it's an interesting still life capture. But I'm not sure even so that it's interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Each person seems to have been placed in a specific order --Wilfredor (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old little shop with corrugated iron roof, selling drinks and petrol, in Don Khon, Laos.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2020 at 01:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good QI, but too boring for me to consider it one of the best images on Commons. The light is just average and the subject doesn't seem too impressive either.--Peulle (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple composition of an interesting subject, good quality, lovely light, wowy just enough for FP to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks "Rural decay" last month challenge :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this kind of photos.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. —kallerna (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The small-town Southeast Asian feel is nostalgic for me, but I don't find this a great composition, partly because of the wooden structure in the right foreground, which IMO calls too much attention to itself and stops eye movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more representations like this from developing countries. Thanks! --Wilfredor (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ikan Poco a poco (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the nostalgic feel of it, but it's undermined somewhat by the fact that the goods on sale aren't for the most part traditional stuff from this culture (indeed, one of them appears to be a can of Coca-Cola!) It's a nice idea but I'm afraid it's QI not FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. -- Karelj (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht in de omgeving van bergdorp S-charl 17-09-2019. (actm.) 04.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2020 at 16:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People# Woman is drawing.
Info The woman on the couch makes a sketch of the panorama what we are looking at.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good composition, but sharpness could be improved. --XRay ^talk 17:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I just don’t get the idea. Then, I read your description and found this necessary; the image does not explain itself, there’s no clear subject. The foreground rock is distracting and does not help to understand what’s going on here. Overall very noisy. I can’t see anything special here, just a snapshot of an elderly lady doing something enigmatic with a book and a pen, plus a foreground rock to fill the frame and a bit of mountain hidden behind pine trees. --Kreuz schnabel 18:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't find it particularly noisy but otherwise more or less agree with Kreuz. It's not clear just by looking at the photo that she's sketching, and that doesn't make it a great composition, although it's not bad to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me, this just looks like an everyday shot.--Peulle (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version only because I love the composition. The alternative isn't interesting enough for me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition is not harmonious for me, probably mostly because of that big rock in the foreground. The light is also a bit harsh with blown areas. --Cart (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. I can see what you wanted, but it just doesn't come across. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good for me. Good composition, beautiful colors und perfect sharpness -- Spurzem (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice converging lines to hone in on the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The combo does not work overall IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Ermell (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

File:Embhor.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2020 at 13:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Emberizidae_(Buntings)
Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does the file title "Embhor" mean? --Cart (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment probably short form of Emberiza hortulana --Ivar (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that sounds plausible. So a file with a hard-to-understand name, a two-word description (you have to read the categories to get the full info, which no non-Commoner can make heads or tails of) and no Exif is considered a good FPC? Come on guys, it seems to me like while the quality of the pictures is improving, the quality of documentation is going steadily downhill. We should be better than this; these are things that are actually written about in the image guidelines for FPCs and they should be dealt with before making a nom. Please. --Cart (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Cart that further information would be helpful. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please rename the file once the nomination is over to something like "Ortolan bunting in Sierra de Guara, Aragon, Spain". Thanks, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Cart and GRDN711. --Cayambe (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are the head feathers oversharpened? They look strange to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not going to spoil the party. But the photo is clearly overworked for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good overall but I agree about the oversharpening. Cmao20 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm going to "spoil the party". Oppose per my remarks above and the remarks from currently neutral folks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Pinging all previous voters for recheck: @The Cosmonaut, Poco a poco, GRDN711, Podzemnik, Cayambe, Daniel Case, Fischer.H, Famberhorst, Cmao20, and Ikan Kekek: head feathers are now a bit smoother. --Ivar (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think that quite solves the problem; rather, it blurs it. But the result is enough of an improvement for me to cross out my opposing vote, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gebertsham Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 06:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Winged altar at the subsidiary church Gebertsham, municipality of Lochen am See, Upper Austria. Attributed to Gordian Guckh and his workshop, around 1515–1520. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. Cmao20 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I sort of felt like I should comment on this nomination, because I normally always support your nominations of photos of winged altarpieces, and as a photo, this is on the same level as the other ones I've supported. I most assuredly will not vote against this nom. That said, this art is leaving me cold. I looked at all of the compositions carefully, and none of them are deficient in terms of linear arabesque. I think that they're just not striking me as expressive in a way that speaks to me, and that's what's denying wow to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NS DD-IRM Schagen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 11:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info A typically strong composition from the acknowledged master of train photos on Commons. Created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm undecided, as Kabelleger usually gets better sharpness than this. However, I'd love some categories for the particular flowers we're seeing. Categories of unidentified flowers are disappointing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some cats added. --Cart (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, Cart. Are those purple hyacinths, too? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it, but they are too far away and too insignificant in the photo to warrant a category IMO. --Cart (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support A shame for the short length of the train but overall FP to me, but per Ikan Poco a poco (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Short length? Yes, but realize this train comes four times an hour during this time of the day. --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michielverbeek is correct. Also, this is a double-deck train, that has seats for some 600 passengers. MartinD (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition -- Spurzem (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Composition is a little static, but the colors make up for it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per others and my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe too much sky --Wilfredor (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like 3 % of the photo is actually train. I don't think that the composition is that great, it's too centered. —kallerna (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Wilfredor -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very Dutch scene, although it's a pity there are no windmills or wooden shoes. MartinD (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ColourSpeed - AM (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Пагорби над Дністром. Панорама.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 11:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info A panorama of the Dniester River and the surrounding hills near the village of Nahoriany, Chernivtsi Oblast, Ukraine. I like the composition, the light conditions, and the way the Ukrainian flag is blowing towards the camera - could almost be a poster for a Ukrainian tourist board! Created by Zysko serhii - uploaded by Zysko serhii - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo that could have been great. For me it just misses the wow by putting everything below the horizon, going down the slope so you'd get the three rocks piercing the horizon would have been great. Sorry --Cart (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is wow for me here but the chroma noise in darker areas should be reduced, Poco a poco (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. I miss no "wow" whatever it means. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Spurzem. --Grtek (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For some photos, a really striking image is enough of a reason to feature them. This is one of those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart, who says exactly what I thought, once again. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colours --Dinkum (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 20:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. —kallerna (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you find in it that's overprocessed? (Genuine question). It doesn't look unnatural to me but I'd like to know what you see that isn't right for you. Cmao20 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fallätsche Traverse Morning Sun.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2020 at 17:06:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Zürich
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the light in this one (and the nature around that area of course). --Domob (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and very atmospheric -- Spurzem (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: strong chromatic aberration around leaves and branches at the top --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, I will try to correct them later today. --Domob (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at least as far as I could. It seems definitely a bit better now, but not perfect. Unfortunately this lens is quite prone to flares and CAs. --Domob (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Chaotic composition in my view, and not so interesting subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Basile on this one. Your work is usually great and this has the usual good quality but the atmosphere doesn't seem that special to me in this shot. Cmao20 (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No worries and thanks for the review! I actually somewhat agree with Basile as well, the composition is certainly a bit cluttered. For me the light and mood still makes this into a worthy nomination, but that's of course a matter of taste. --Domob (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile with regret as there are many aspects to this image that are well-done. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It took me a long time to get there, but this composition - unusual for FPC - is working for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaotic. -- Karelj (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centranthus ruber in Herault 02.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 22:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info The yellow flower in the backgrund is disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful, but I think the DoF is too shallow for this to be one of the most outstanding flower photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Pretty picture but not sufficiently sharp in enough places. Cmao20 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sojourner Truth, 1870 (cropped, restored).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2020 at 22:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Randall Studio, restored by Coffeeandcrumbs - nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very historically important portrait, and her eyes are haunting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable woman, remarkable portrait. Cmao20 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MartinD (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait to give the gold star to now that Black History Month is upon us. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:Golda Meir (1964).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2020 at 12:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Willem van de Poll - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Much better quality than the photo from which it's extracted, but I question the crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Bergtocht van Val Sinestra via Vnà naar Zuort. 16-09-2019. (d.j.b) 25.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 15:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Switzerland Suspension bridge.
Info Mountain tour from Val Sinestra via Vnà to Zuort. Punts penduossas Sinestra - Zuort. Suspension bridge about the Brancla between Val Sinestra and Zuort.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject but the composition is a bit busy, it doesn't really fill me with any great sense of wonder. I also think the brightness is a bit too high. Great image quality as usual though. Cmao20 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acanthosaura cardamomensis - Khao Khitchakut National Park.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2020 at 13:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Agamidae_(Dragon_Lizards)
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by Moon rabbit 365 - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Nice photo with good image quality but there's too much empty space at the top for me, it would be a better image if we could crop most of that out. Cmao20 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ~~Neutral~~, sorry but the more I think about that the more it bugs me. It's a good photo but it could just be so much better if the composition didn't look so unbalanced. Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support New crop is excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info 16:9 crop uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A real portrait. --Aristeas (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Agamidae_(Dragon_Lizards)

File:Khone Phapheng Falls, Si Phan Don, Laos, widest waterfall in the world.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 00:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm torn, because everything but the sky is great, but the sky is not very interesting, and there's a lot of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. I've uploaded a 16/9 format instead of the previous 3/2. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Much better! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better format. --Cart (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Nice photo, but like this it does not look like the widest waterfall in the world --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can't photograph them all from the ground. They are only visible in several places 10 kilometers apart, separated by islands. Read Khone Phapheng Falls. The name of the file comes from Wikipedia. This indicates why the site, with these falls particularly (the main ones), is popular -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Langensendelbach Kirche Orgel-20200126-RM-164238.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2020 at 21:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Musical instruments
Info Steinmeyer organ in the church of Langensendelbach BJ.1912. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wow for the sharpness, but the composition is not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hervorragendes Foto einer nicht sonderlich schönen Orgel. Aber was soll der Fotograf machen, um dieses Instrument ansprechender ins Blickfeld zu rücken? -- Spurzem (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful organ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too dark IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nothing wrong with the organ, it looks really interesting IMHO. I don't quite like the upper and lower crop of the picture, but I guess that's due to physical limitations in the church. --Domob (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut on bottom and not centered --Wilfredor (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks centered to me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support A little soft, but the symmetry is pleasing to the eye. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality to me and very interesting organ Poco a poco (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michielverbeek, it's also slightly underexposed. Nothing wrong with the image, but nothing great neither. —kallerna (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Platax pinnatus1.jpeg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2020 at 03:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Class_:_Actinopterygii_(Ray-finned_Fish)
Info: improved crop compared to the previous nomination; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to Support this. Per my reasoning in the previous nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. —kallerna (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Beach, Karpaz, Northern Cyprus.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2020 at 13:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Cyprus
Info Golden Beach, Karpaz, Northern Cyprus - shot under nice dramatic light, and the image quality is good. Overall one of the best beach scenes I've seen on Commons and definitely stands out for me. created by Podzemnik - uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but it looks fairly ordinary to me. --Peulle (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary beach photo. —kallerna (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Nice but not outstanding. --Kreuz schnabel 10:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry everyone, it seems clear that this won't pass. I dare say the fact that the creator has not voted in favour is an indication that this one probably isn't an FP, likely a misjudgment on my part. I still like this pic though Cmao20 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ratufa bicolor, Black giant squirrel - Kaeng Krachan National Park (49192401008).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2020 at 12:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Rushen - uploaded by Junior Jumper - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 12:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 12:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Cart (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Böttingen-1997.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2020 at 16:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created & uploaded by DKrieger - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice photo, but the mushroom seems noisy to me. I'd like a second opinion on that, though. The filename should be more meaningful, referring to the mushroom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition but I don't think the detail on the mushroom is sufficient given the relatively low resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Another nom with a misleading name. You still haven't changed the name on one of your latest noms, not added proper post-promotion categories or sorted it in the gallery. --Cart (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Name fixed. It's not very clear to me why you mentioned the categories and sorting. Nearly everyone who nominates pictures here doesn't add the FP categories to the page (it's almost always A.Savin), nor do they sort the images in the FP galleries. Please remind on that for other users as well. Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I do pester other users with telling them to sort and categorize images too; it is just the first time I've reminded you. We do need help with the boring "behind the scenes" work. It should not just fall to a few users to do all of it. "it's almost always A.Savin", yes true, but he has also asked people to help with that many times. I think he gets just as tired as me of asking people to help with the not so glamorous part of FPs. --Cart (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do help sometimes with those tasks, but I'll try to remember doing that regularly at least with my nominations. Tomer T (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cmao. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Exécution de la Punition de Fouet et Negres ao Tronco by Jean-Baptiste Debret.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2020 at 14:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1700-1800
Info created by Jean-Baptiste Debret - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Wilfredor -- Wilfredor (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very historically important and horrific images, and well photographed. One small quibble: You give the style as "Classicism", but that would refer to ancient Greece and Rome. If you're sure it's not Romantic, it would be Neoclassic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks and yes I think FPC has almost zero African presence, so I tried for a long time to add more images on this subject and thus balance the content a little. it is a very painful subject and a hidden story, images like these were very common and widely accepted by the society of the time --Wilfredor (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrible!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite harrowing. Cmao20 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of great historical importance. Ahmad^talk 20:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1700-1800

File:Symphysodon aequifasciatus - Karlsruhe Zoo 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 15:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Cichlidae_(Cichlids)
Info Blue Discus; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my vote here. Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Symphysodon aequifasciatus - Karlsruhe Zoo 04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 15:46:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Cichlidae_(Cichlids)
Info Fire Red Discus; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support just as I voted on the set nom. You've picked the two sharpest ones to nominate individually and they're both clearly FPs for me. Cmao20 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:De Moulin Rouge in Parijs bij avond, Bestanddeelnr 254-5695.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2020 at 02:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Willem van de Poll - uploaded by Mr.Nostalgic - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quite a striking photograph! Do you have any idea how large a print was shown at early exhibits including this photograph? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me think of the Kraftwerk song. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Makes me think how remove the noise --Wilfredor (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an old picture so the noise is forgiveable. Interesting to see how it looked back then. Cmao20 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Translation of the description into English would be great. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palace of Fine Arts (16794p).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2020 at 05:10:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info 18 frames. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice light. {{Panorama}}? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for an excellent composition, beautiful light and colors, but I already see some noise in the sky at 40% of an admittedly humongous file, so you might consider lessening the noise a little. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Applied denoise to most of the sky, and a little less denoise to a couple other spots. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, a lot of work went into this! Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CullodenCairn-2017.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2020 at 14:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Memorial cairn on the Culloden Battlefield

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by CrlNvl - uploaded by CrlNvl - nominated by CrlNvl -- CrlNvl (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CrlNvl (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very good QI/VI, but the sky is too boring, IMO, for FP. There are also a couple of very evident dust spots in the sky that should be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing much wrong with this image, the quality is absolutely fine, but to me it's not quite interesting enough for FP. It's basically the shot that anyone would take if they went to visit this cairn, rather than anything unusual. The light is nice and sunny, but it's also a bit harsh, as is always the problem with shooting midday. Cmao20 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. It's just too static a composition, and while it isn't going to change my !vote it'd be more self-evidently a QI if most of that empty sapphire at the top were cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Cart (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oster Fjordsteam 2018 (151352).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2020 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created & uploaded by Toresetre - nominated by ~~Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Info Nomination taken over by W.carter. --Cart (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't really work for me as a composition. Also, the light seems hazy, and a lot of the colors of the buildings seem washed out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background way too busy for such a shot, though the boat as such is finely depicted. The cold lighting makes me freeze … --Kreuz schnabel 11:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- M797982 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your first edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --Cart (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the composition, but it needs more contrast, and the background should be blurrier than it is. At the moment the boat hardly stands out from the background. Cmao20 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I withdraw my nomination~~ Tomer T (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info I really like this scene, and I think Tomer T found a real gem here, so I'm taking over this nomination with an alternative that addresses the issues noted by voters Ikan Kekek, Kreuzschnabel, Cmao20. --Cart (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Additional editing (redistribution of light) by me. --Cart (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the whole thing comes together in a very nice scene. The old ship is matched perfectly with the period cityscape in the background and there are only a few disturbing modern things. The cold hazy light is also what you often get up here in the north. And refreshingly, I can't spot a single person taking a selfie. --Cart (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Still doesn't work for me as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Background does take away from the ship a bit, but per Cart when thought of as a combination (old ship, old buildings), it works. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. —kallerna (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna. -- Karelj (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport

The chosen alternative is: File:Oster Fjordsteam 2018 (151352) -edited.jpg

File:Building in a flooded area of Lysekil during Storm Ciara.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2020 at 11:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Floods
Info Even in a storm, things can look perfectly calm in a photo. This little impromptu island was created when the sea rose to about one meter above average during the storm yesterday, causing flooding all along the coast. The wind was at 22 m/s so tripod or any multi-photo image was not an option in the dim light, hence the higher ISO and low f-number. (More storm photos in my uploads or on Flickr) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice scene too, but I'm a little concerned about the processing. It sort of looks a bit overprocessed, am I wrong? --Peulle (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong. The light was very low (check out the other photos from this photo session) so I had to raise the shadows and darkness quite a bit. The wind kept shaking the camera so I could't go for longer time to get more natural light and contrast and at a higher ISO things would get too grainy, so instead I opted for post-processing. Even with really good post, you can never get it to look completely natural, this was as close as I could get. The colors are real, only the light has been processed. --Cart (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Peulle, I've dialed back the highlights and contrast a bit, perhaps it's better. Also 'ping' Basile about the change. --Cart (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wij hebben vanmiddag foto's gemaakt van de storm Ciara. We moeten ze nog bekijken.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ik kijk ernaar uit ze te zien. --Cart (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
btw, I have stayed at home during the storm --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Nice scene indeed but not an outstanding image IMHO. Nothing looks "stormy" here, the sky is posterized with purple areas. Something like "so what?" came to my mind. --Kreuz schnabel 17:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the initial info, I wasn't going for "stormy" with this but a calm area in the storm. I had in mind the compo with the house surrounded by water. It was a side effect of the storm (as in flooding), not a depiction of it. I think it was only fair to mention the storm in the title and description, since it was what caused the high water level. Anyway, FP category adjusted. --Cart (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing special IMHO. —kallerna (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough. --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like more sky, but a bit of tension is OK in this kind of subject. However, I'd like some noise reduction in the sky, if possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but not very dramatic.--Ermell (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ermell Poco a poco (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good picture, but no wow recognizable. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atmospheric and good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Grtek (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very actual image. -- Karelj (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting juxtaposition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I wouldn't like it much if the wave under the house wasn't there. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here is where the rule of thirds would have helped. To have the main subject placed so far upwards while being right in the middle just looks disconcerting to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Might as well, it's not going to go any further. Thanks for your comments. --Cart (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fishing in Örekilsälven upstream from Kvistrum bridge 3.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2020 at 10:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how focus stacking is necessary for a landscape picture, but anyway, you have unsharpnesses at both edges. --A.Savin 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The extra photo was for the man and the area around him, since I know the limits of my cameras. On this occasion, I only had my little Sony and with its small sensor it doesn't always produce full sharpness all the way to the borders of the photo. --Cart (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok A.Savin, some extra sharpening applied to the edges. That's as much as I can do. --Cart (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the edges are sharp enough now.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination On second thought, A.Savin is right. That little camera isn't good enough for FPs any more, the bar has been raised. Thanks for making me realize that. --Cart (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Averau Forcella Averau Croda Negra.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2020 at 12:25:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info Skiing slope in the Dolomites (UNESCO) world heritage. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps the most obvious FP on this page at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I missed your Dolomites shots. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support back from holiday?--Ermell (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back! IMHO a great photo. --Aristeas (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teatro Bolshói, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 42-43 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2020 at 16:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info Facade of the worldwide famous Bolshoi Theatre, Moscow, Russia. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong color noise and distortion (see note) --Wilfredor (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful place. I wouldn't say the colour noise is awful, but there's a couple of places I think it needs reduction (see notes). Cmao20 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This photo has imho much better light conditions. --Ivar (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wilfredor, Cmao20 noise reduced and curves adjusted --Poco a poco (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking way better now. Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How I told in the note, the building in the left is inclined or a distortion problem --Wilfredor (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo with note: File:Tilt image.png

Looks to me like a very minor issue (very slight and that buildings does not play an essential role in the photograph) Poco a poco (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor and anyone else: Please do not display any other pictures in a nomination. The FPCBot will read it as an "Alternative". Always just link to the image. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better after corrections. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar, and would not even support that image. —kallerna (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but I'd prefer Blue hour. Strong noise in some parts. Cloning (?) error at the very right (at shop door). --A.Savin 11:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and very good -- Spurzem (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acanthiza pusilla - Austin's Ferry.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2020 at 06:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pardalotidae_(Pardalotes)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but JJ Harrison, could you please identify the insect the bird has in its beak and add its category? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Ikan Kekek: She has at least 3 different insects on the beak and it's very hard to id them like that. --Ivar (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support This author is uploading higher-resolution bird images nowadays, and I suspect this one is downsampled. However, I'm OK with it here because the insect makes it a bit more special - but higher resolution would still be nice, if you have it JJ Harrison Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Higher resolution would be very welcome, because it would enable closer observation of the insects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What long legs of the insect! Pity about the resolution but still - the bird is farily small and it's a nice shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "long legs" are not legs but the antennae of one of the (at least 3) insects --Llez (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support The bird's cuteness and the fact that it's eating just offset the distracting background. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congratulations on the successful nomination Ivar. Could you please be so kind as to sort this (as soon as the Bot has promoted it), as well as your other noms, like these, into the right sections in the FP gallery pages. We need all the help we can get with that task. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 00:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by unknown photographer - uploaded by Durova - digitally restored by Durova - nominated by Durova 2 -- Durova 2 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background this historic photograph was previously nominated in 2016 and closed without consensus because a question went unanswered. The lack of a clear response was a good faith misunderstanding: the nominator was not the editor who performed the restoration. I am the editor who performed this restoration; until yesterday I was unaware that this image had ever been nominated for FP at Commons. After a cordial conversation with the person who posed that question it seems worthwhile to nominate this again. Please excuse the new account; in the decade since retiring I've forgotten the old password.

The image is in use on dozens of Wikimedia projects and is featured on four language editions of Wikipedia. It provides encyclopedic background for a topic of universal interest which attracts high user traffic: an editor on the Italian language Wikipedia who maintains tables of highly trafficked articles notes the corresponding article as among the 20 most visited articles site-wide for three weeks in 2017 and 2018.[1][2][3]. Stating these things not to boast, rather as explanation why this particular image deserves a brief return from wiki-oblivion to respond to a well reasoned question in the absence of other answers.

The albumen print has good composition and superior technical merits for circa 1870, an era when long exposure times made informal group portraits quite difficult to do well. The image was made in central Asia in or near what is now Turkmenistan. The earlier FP nomination question had to do with whether the scanned print's deep sepia tones are the photographer's artistic intent. It's safe to say no. Albumen needs less exposure time than glass plate photography, which was a constraint in 1870 for a composition where any of eight subjects might move at any time. Afterward the print paper yellowed for nearly fourteen decades before it was scanned. My final edits corrected a subtle technical problem (probably a minor chemical imbalance) that caused yellow to be relatively dominant on the left side of the image and magenta to predominate toward the right, then a partial desaturation to reduce the intrusive coloration of antique paper, plus adjustments to correct for fade. This restoration strives to recreate the print's appearance in its early years: the albumen only slightly browned, dirt and creases removed, and repairing chemical damage to the sleeve of a man toward the right.

The earlier FP conversation is Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/April_2016#File:Circumcision_central_Asia2.jpg,_not_featured and yesterday's more detailed conversation is User_talk:Ikan_Kekek#A_very_old_FP_conversation. Reference uploads are linked from the image hosting page for the unedited original and an intermediate edit. Many thanks to Ikan Kekek for insightful and supportive commentary. Durova 2 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Durova 2 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Historic photo and good composition. Do you know what the size of the original print was? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The length and width of the physical print, you mean? The Library of Congress image information gives the scan filesize but not the dimensions of the source image.[4] Followed up with other searches about size information about albumen prints. The border design on the mounting paper suggests that this print was a standard size, either a cabinet card.[5] (108 mm x 165 mm) or a carte de visite[6] (54 mm x 89 mm). Both formats were used during the era when this was made. If you want my best guess between those options I'd say cabinet card. A safer reply would be the print is small enough to stabilize with a thick paper backing; albumen print papers are lightweight.[7] Durova 2 (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support historical/cultural significance. --Gnosis (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically, the restoration effort is excellent, but I don't think it's appropriate to promote an image depicting genital mutilation of a child with the subject very obviously in pain. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo belongs in the /Historical#1850-1900 section, I've fixed that for you. Yes, it is painful to look at, as are so many other photos in Commons:Featured pictures/Historical (take a look), but as a repository for encyclopedias we need good photos of everything; not just cute animals or lovely scenery. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything, really? Including rape and snuff? And while we should have materials on some disturbing topics, we certainly don't need to promote them. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever visited an art museum? If a good reproduction of say this was up for nomination, I would judge the image with the same objective eye as this nomination. --Cart (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you know the difference between a fictional depiction and reality, yes? Though if you say you'll support a photo from this category featuring human subjects, should it ever get nominated, I'll admit that you're at least being consistent. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo is of exceptional quality, had encyclopedic value and would be useful for articles in the project, I would consider the photo carefully, just like any other nomination. I did not say I would support just any photo just because it is horrible. In the long run, it would be desirable to have at least one FP in every category here on Commons, but we are a long way from that yet. --Cart (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the category fix, Cart. To The Cosmonaut, documenting a historic practice isn't necessarily promoting it. Among the other historic topics I worked on was File:Segregated cinema entrance3.jpg; here's hoping no one ever thinks the image restoration promoted that. Durova 2 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By promoting, I mean the featured status. And unlike segregation, this is not a historic practice. This is happening every day all over the world. We've had opposition over promoting images of perceived animal abuse. Surely, images of child abuse ought to be considered even more carefully. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to that other conversation. I see your point. Being inactive for ten years means being out of the loop on an active debates. Please weigh this consideration: the past isn't necessarily as finished we'd like to believe. Ansel Adams donated his photographs of Manzanar to the public domain hoping the public would learn from them. Now signs refusing service to all Chinese customers are starting to reappear in other countries' shop windows.[8] It's when people become complacent and think those things are done and over that segregation returns; all it takes is a few weeks of virus bring it back. Part of the reason for working with those images from internment camps and John Vachon's photographs of Jim Crow segregation is to bring these important topics closer so people do consider them carefully. Durova 2 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Billions of people are members of religions that practice circumcision. Refusing to feature photos of the practice smacks of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish bias, though I understand the position that it's only against genital mutilation. But what makes a man Muslim or Jewish? Speaking as a Jew, not circumcising means denying the covenant and cutting yourself off from your people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The assumption that featuring a picture of something means we are somehow "promoting" the depicted is deeply flawed. Following that logic, we also "promote" the 2008 riots in Greece, shooting at people, 9/11, the Vietnam war, RPGs, nuclear bombs, Sony, objectification of women, letting people starve to death, the cold war, Air France and Airbus, being homeless, Nazi concentration camps and what happened there, the Iraq war and Didgeridoos. Marking this picture as worth having a look at through FP neither promotes nor condemns the practice it shows. That is up to the people in the sister projects, where it is used to illustrate the practice shown – and whether that happens in a manner that condemns, promotes or neutrally discusses the matter is not really our concern. Whether this would be a good choice for the Commons front page/POTD is of course an entirely different question that would need to be discussed elsewhere. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Cosmonaut. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Grtek (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 100 % per Cosmonaut.-- Karelj (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is probably not very pleasant to see but circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, I think this image has historic significance and its great that shows the pain and the suffering the poor kid is going through. We have to remember not every image must be nice and pleasant, sometimes there is more to it. --Gnosis (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and others. --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality even for a historical shot --A.Savin 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin.--Ermell (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dacelo novaeguineae - Bird Kingdom.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 01:57:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)
Info: all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough for FP, and even less so because it's captive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, and the light isn't really great.--Peulle (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me. We've promoted much worse bird photos. Sharpness seems far from terrible seeing this is a close-up shot with lots of detail on the bird. It looks better at full size than in thumbnail, where it can look a little dark at first. Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd remind you that the description of a Featured Picture is not "we've promoted much worse" or "seems far from terrible". The description is: "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images." Is an image that's not as bad as some others that perhaps shouldn't have been promoted and far from terrible one of the finest images on the site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the voting guidelines are. My comment said that the sharpness was 'far from terrible', not, as you have it, that the image itself was 'far from terrible'. It was a direct response to two other people saying that the sharpness wasn't sufficient for FP. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I voted for it because it's 'not as bad as some others', but I genuinely think it's overall a good candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Just seems kind of ordinary. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebermannstadt Marienkapelle Altar -20190908-RM-165657.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2020 at 22:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo is very busy. (Lots of splendor). But you can't help it either.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one, but is it sloping slightly to the right? Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, maybe would be better a bit brighter? Tournasol7 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The non-centered composition doesn't work for me, sorry. —kallerna (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree, the problem could have been minor if the pov would have been higher, I guess. Poco a poco (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the reasons for this composition, but it does not work for me, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congratulations on the successful nomination Ermell. Could you please be so kind as to sort this (as soon as the Bot has promoted it), as well as others of your promoted photos, into the right sections in the FP gallery pages. We need all the help we can get with that task. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter: In which category should that be besides:category=Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany ?--Ermell (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: An FP should only be in one category, the category/page that is chosen for it. The only thing you have to do is sort it from the 'Unsorted' section to the 'Germany' section on that page. That is all. It's not much work if everyone does it with their own nominations, but quite a bit or work if one or two users have to do it for every nom. I hade sorted so many of your previous nominations that way. Thank you for helping with your own noms! :-) --Cart (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Sorry if I ask again, but the picture is in the category Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany or do I see it wrong? --Ermell (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: Well, you were not looking hard enough. Just because you write "*'''Category:''' [[Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany]] on your nomination, it does not mean that the FP is placed there automatically. So, let me use this as an example for you: The Bot always places the new FPs in the 'Unsorted' section of the chosen gallery page, in this case Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Unsorted. After that is done, a human has to move the FP from the 'Unsorted' section to the right section, in this case '#Germany'. I have now done that for you in this edit. Please take a look at it. That is what everyone should do with their own noms. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermell: Also in this edit I sorted your organ, and in this I sorted one of your flowers, and here some more flowers. I hope with these examples you may understand better. --Cart (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Euromaidan 2014 in Kyiv. The Defender of Barricade.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 15:39:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good sharp focus to the person, but no wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition and haunting face, especially his eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek--Grtek (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michael --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and per others. -- Karelj (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortaleza de Kristiansten, Trondheim, Noruega, 2019-09-06, DD 76-81 PAN.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2020 at 19:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Norway
Info Panoramic view of Kristiansten Fortress, Trondheim, Norway. Named after Christian V of Denmark-Norway, itt was built after the city fire of Trondheim in 1681 to protect the city against attack from the east. It was finished in 1685 and fulfilled its purpose in 1718 when Swedish forces laid siege against Trondheim. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imho high resolution doesn't compensate dull light conditions. For example, this photo has special light. Also CW tilt (I'm looking at the town with church) and parking lot makes the result even more weak. --Ivar (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yeah, I agree with you on the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Poco but I definitely agree with the opposes here. It's a fine QI to illustrate the place and I'm sure it will be very useful in Wikipedia but the light is too uninteresting for FP, and I find the sweep of the panorama to be a little bit random. Also the right-hand side isn't very sharp, as if the frame is motion-blurred. Cmao20 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am not enthusiastic with this image. Obviously it does not show the real impression which we would get of this place with our eyes. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a beautiful panorama that was simply taken in the wrong weather. There are some minor problems such as inclination, and poor quality at the extremes, however, this was simply bad luck with the weather. I generally don't agree with making alterations like this one, however, when these bad luck happen to me I feel a great temptation to do it --Wilfredor (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedral Cove 06.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2020 at 22:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand#Waikato
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I mean it's a nice picture, but honesty, it does not stand up from the crowd. We've all seen dozens of beach pictures like this. —kallerna (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New Zealand#Waikato

File:Oberstenfeld - Burg Lichtenberg - Ansicht von WSW (2).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2020 at 23:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info Lichtenberg Castle, a twelfth-century fortress near Oberstenfeld in Baden-Wuerttemberg. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The vineyard lines make it special. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wie oben: die auf die Burg zulaufenden Reihen der Rebstöcke tragen sehr zum Bild bei. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20, thank you very much for nominating ;–), and all of you for your votes! --Aristeas (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. To be honest your uploads are a goldmine of potential FP candidates. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Picturesque and pleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemink and Frank. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good evening light. --Ivar (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. --Cart (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polypedates megacephalus (mating), Spot-legged tree frog - Khao Nang Phanthurat Forest Park (34388069214).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2020 at 11:19:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Rhacophoridae_(Shrub_Frogs)
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by Magnus Manske - nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 12:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Happy post-Valentine's Day to the frogs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality, subject, depth of field. Well done! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frogs gettin' messy ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 16:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Rhacophoridae_(Shrub_Frogs)

File:Navajo Sandstone1.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2020 at 03:38:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Utah
Info: Navajo Sandstone at the Moccasin Mountain Dinosaur Tracksite, Utah, USA; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but the post-processing is not good. The cliff has a halo and it looks almost plastic at full size. It's actually better to go easy on the noise reduction and leave a little grain. Information gets lost in the smear. --Cart (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong halo effect. —kallerna (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination: yes, you're right, I'll apply different post-processing and renominate at some point. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Langweerderwielen-Langwarder Wielen. Storm Ciara. 11-02-2020. (d.j.b) 03.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2020 at 19:03:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Floods
Info Storm Ciara rushes over Langweerderwielen-Langwarder Wielen.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very dramatic photo! Please be safe! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of water but not very fascinating. The picture sharpness is not overwhelming and the sky is a little too noisy in my opinion. I like the light.--Ermell (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ermell. —kallerna (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose +1 --El Grafo (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ermell. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mainly for the light which I enjoy a lot. Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. -- Karelj (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Feels like something cropped down from a genuinely featurable image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course a lot of water, but a beautiful image of water -- Spurzem (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloß Nordkirchen 1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2020 at 16:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Ep44319 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice reflection, but not good enough for FP, top of the tower is missing. It also needs a perspective improvement, but that is repairable. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quite a beautiful image, but it seems oversharpened to me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is some special serenity in this image. However, as Michiel and Cmao20 have already noted, it needs a minor perspective correction and less (or more refined) sharpening. --Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Fischer.H (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:TWA Hotel (87640p).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2020 at 04:17:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info 3-frame panorama. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eero Saarinen designed the wing-shaped Neo-futurist/Googie-style TWA Flight Center at JFK Airport in New York City in 1962. It closed in 2001 and recently reopened as a hotel. This is the big open lounge area that one enters when coming from the still-operative Terminal 5 next door. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love it. Now, before I support it, can you please check the note I put into the image? Seems like there is a small stitching problem, should be easy to fix. Out of curiosity: did you manage to handhold 0.1s exposition? --Podzemnik (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: Thanks! Fixed. Yes, it was hand-held. My tripod was packed away (and although there aren't a lot of people in the frame, it was crowded enough that they probably wouldn't have appreciated it). :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thanks for fixing it. It could have been better but OK to me. I love the photo heaps! --Podzemnik (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral These types of images with people doing everyday things are some of my favorites, it is seen that there is life there, a stressed woman drinking at the bar, someone preparing a presentation for the next day, people arriving from a plane, everything seems very moved, however, there is an joining problem in the ceiling, in the upper right, however, the big problem here IMHO is the people in motion blur. This can be corrected if you have another version of the same framing and using another layer in photoshop and you could remove these ghost people, this is sometimes done automatically by photoshop, the lighting is a bit tetric and reminds me of one of my many nights in an airport --Wilfredor (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: Thanks. I fixed the stitching error, but unfortunately there's no way for me to fix the people. I don't have another version from this angle. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I simply love this Jetson-styled photo, and it's unfortunate with the blurred people in the image. Would you accept this version where I have "de-warped" some of the people to make the image easier on the eye? Yours to upload if you want it. --Cart (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Thanks for that. Curious how you did that, actually. The likeness waiter in your image seems hard to find in the ghost, but looking at another image I have, your picture is a little closer to how he looks than the way I remembered. :) Given there are quite a few ghosts here (some of which I might be able to clone out, like those in front of the window; some which would be harder without some kind of unholy photoshop magic :) ), I'm frankly inclined to wait and see how this goes before trying to handle them, and then, if necessary, use yours as a starting point to start Ghostbusting. I feel like given the conditions it's hard to expect only crisp humans (literally and figuratively, at an airport bar), and that it's potentially featurable with them... we'll see. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only worked with this image, no other image is involved. It's a mix of techniques. Some is just basic cloning and using the patching tool, but the magic bullet is the filter 'Liquify' to undo some of the motion. Mix using that with the 'Transform>Distort' tool. You have to go back and forth a few times, work in layers, blend with some 'Smear' and know a bit about painting, but in the end it will get the image where you want it. You know, the hardest part about trying to tell you how I do things in PS and LR, is actually to find the names of the controls and tools in English since my subscription is set to Sweden/Swedish. Hope I got it right. --Cart (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating image! Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting interior -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trichoglossus forsteni forsteni - Karlsruhe Zoo 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2020 at 08:35:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Psittaculidae_(True_Parrots)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good resolution, but imho colors are oversaturated. --Ivar (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. --Ivar (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the exif, no saturation is added but a few other toggles are pulled at tad too far (Vibrance +24, Highlights -100, Whites -100, Blacks -55). You might want to ease up on those for a more realistic look, vibrance is always risky to apply. --Cart (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Corrections done as proposed by Cart --Llez (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is fine and colours look more natural now. Solid candidate overall. Cmao20 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //13:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Psittaculidae_(True_Parrots)

File:Brakelund Burial Ground 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2020 at 07:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Sweden
Info created & uploaded by Kokkenmodding - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but why one of the best images on Commons? I'm not really seeing it. I also think the bottom crop is a bit roomy compared to the top; it feels a bit unbalanced.---Peulle (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful details, but the composition doesn't work for me. A composition that focused on the graveyard and the trees above it might be featurable, but all the empty snow and sky serve as a nearly inert presence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the subtleness of how the silence has been captured. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'd prefer a tighter crop on the bottom --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Grtek (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Virgin snow, pastel colors of the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm quite torn - I love the scene but I wish you pointed out your camera a bit higher. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. A little bit noisy, but acceptable. -- -donald- (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. --Aristeas (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank, I wasn't sure at first but the composition has grown on me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is indeed a little staid (I think it could be cropped in a bit on the left and bottom) but ... the winter-predawn atmosphere is so real I shiver just looking at it (It's certainly more wintry than anything I've experienced around here the last few months). Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere. Would indeed benefit from a crop at the left and the bottom. --Cayambe (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I would prefer a crop at the bottom. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC) -- Eatcha (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Sweden

File:Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2020 at 16:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Columbiformes_(Pigeons_and_Doves)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose very good light conditions, but sharpness could be better. --Ivar (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Oh well! Charles (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puesta de sol en Trzęsacz, Polonia, 2018-11-03, DD 25.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2020 at 20:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Poland
Info Sunset over the beach of Trzęsacz, a village in the administrative district of Gmina Rewal, within Gryfice County, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, in north-western Poland. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I had my eye on this one, there's something about the aggressive linearity of the manmade structures contrasting with the natural surroundings. Cmao20 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the composition just isn't distinctive enough to elevate it above other sunsets IMO. The sky is empty, and the piers don't quite come together for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too contrasted with a boring bank and a boring sky. Not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King + the beach is really dark. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per others. Pretty scene, but the very dark areas prevent this from being a special composition, and I think there would need to be more going on in the sky or at least the far right quadrant of the photo, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DARK --Killarnee (T•R•P) 15:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the horizon of the sea is twisted and the beach too darkPROPOLI87 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wooden footbridge in Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden, Tokyo, Japan, a sunny day with blue sky.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2020 at 23:08:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Japan
Info created - uploaded- nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This isn't working for me according to a European-style aesthetic of a linear arabesque, but it has a peacefulness that works in the tradition of Japanese religion and aesthetics. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks slightly oversaturated. —kallerna (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polarization filter. No saturation added in post process -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I can see why the polarizer was used although as it often does it leaves a lot of the image looking slightly artificial (I wonder if maybe the water and bridge from a polarized exposure could have been combined with trees and sky from an unpolarized exposure where normal highlight suppression had been used instead?) Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looking again and again at this photo (which is very well done indeed!), I guess what me makes hesitate is the strong contrast together with the almost black shadows. I may be completely wrong, but with classic Japanese culture, art, and gardens I associate subtlety and fine gradated shades (cf. classic essays like 1, 2), and therefore this photo, being very good in itself, seems somewhat “un-Japanese” to me ;–). No offence! --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was the middle of the day, but I promise it really was in Japan :-) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Japan

File:Biene Tautropfen-20191024-RM-104027.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2020 at 22:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family : Apidae (Bumble Bees, Honey Bees, Carpenter Bees, Cuckoo Bees, Orchid Bees, and Stingless Bees)
Info Honeybee with dew drops on the flower of a zinnia. Focus stack of 14 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This one's really special, it might well be your best focus stack yet. Cmao20 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, that's not something you see every day. As long as you don't do those spiders with water drops on their heads that are a plague on the Net. ;-) --Cart (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Awesome. Amazing subject, excellent technical work, high resolution, nice composition. Congrats! Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic, and it was on my list of photos to nominate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. really special. was the bee asleep and indoors? how do you take a 14-frame focus stack of a bee? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The bee had spent the night on the blossom. In the morning fog and with no wind it was possible to take some pictures, of course only with a tripod. Unfortunately the poor creature lay later dead on the ground.--Ermell (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, per others. --Aristeas (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember that this was User:Richard Bartz's favorite type of photography, for more than 10 years I had not seen a photo that was minimally close to his level, very well, I hope to see photographs of that style here. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podzemnik (talk • contribs) --Cart (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 14:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a version with noise and sharpening improved, however, it need author aproval. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor, I think you are a bit too happy to come in with your versions of photos and over-write other photographers' files. You should ask permission before and not after, like I did here. I remember that you have done this before, and you were asked then not to just deliver your versions. So please, slow down and ask first, most of the photographers here would like to work on their photos themselves and you need to respect that even if you only want to be kind/helpful. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cart Thanks for your recommendation, however, I'm not over-writing, how you can see in the file history I uploaded a new version but I rollbacked myself waiting for the author approval, for the moment I have only received praise comments from de authors. The other alternative would be to upload a photo separately which would be worse. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor, well just because you have been praised by some, it does not mean everyone agree with you. I would certainly not like it if you messed with my files and file history in that way. It is simply polite to ask first. You can always put your suggested file in a Dropbox like I usually do, that way you don't need to upload it anywhere on Commons and the original author of the file can take a look at what you have done and say yes or no after that. Or you can simply ask the author if they want help with fixing the noise and sharpness, that is very easy to do. --Cart (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From here on out I will do what you are recommending me, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family : Apidae (Bumble Bees, Honey Bees, Carpenter Bees, Cuckoo Bees, Orchid Bees, and Stingless Bees)

File:Bergtocht van Watles via Sesvennahütte en de Uina Slucht naar Sur En 19-09-2019. (actm.) 22.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2020 at 16:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Italy
Info Mountain tour from Watles via Sesvennahütte and the Uina Slucht to Sur En. Alte Pforzheimer Huette on the Pforzheimer See.}}
Protected monument Alte Pforzheimer Huette (2,256 m.) Beautifully situated in the alpine landscape.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice big building in a wonderful environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, but nice scenery --Llez (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. The relaxing cows in the foreground really add to the image. --Aristeas (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I would crop a bit at the top to increase the landscape view and reduce the noise in darker areas, but still FP to me. Poco a poco (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I wish the building weren't in shadow and it were taken at a better time of day, but the composition is just too good not to support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#Italy

File:Langweerderwielen-Langwarder Wielen. Storm Ciara. 11-02-2020. (d.j.b) 10.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2020 at 16:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
Info Storm Ciara rushes over Langweerderwielen-Langwarder Wielen. The sun broke through very briefly.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could have been sharper at some parts but I love it. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! Seven Pandas (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I fail to see what's so special in this photo. —kallerna (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna. Nice, but not extraordinary. I shot some pictures of floods recently, and the thing is that if it's going to be a photo of a flood, you'll need to make it evident. This doesn't look very "flood" to me.--Peulle (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a picture of a flood but of the Storm Ciara. Who hunts the Netherlands with wind force 10 to 12. This photo is of a lake in Friesland.The wind was blowing so hard that sometimes it was almost blown away by the wind with a tripod. --Famberhorst (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing outstanding in my eyes. Sorry if this sounds rude but FPs have to be more than just "nice" or "interesting". Rather soft for the resolution given, right side is actually unsharp. --Kreuz schnabel 10:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good photo that shows the storm Ciara in the northern part of the Netherlands. --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice dramatic photo and overall good quality although I do wish the right hand side were sharper. Cmao20 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric; I like it. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opposers. -- Karelj (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Storms

File:Rydges facade in the evening sun, Christchurch.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 06:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
Info All by me. I quite like the abstract of the photo - blue windows and slightly curved edges of Rydges building in Christchurch, New Zealand. The building was damaged during the 2011 earthquakes and it's currently empty, hence the dirty windows. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They would make nice patterns if these glasses were not so dirty -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: I'm afraid I can't do anything about it. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean them :-) No but your angle definitely caught these reflections. The right side is much better -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 16:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the dirty windows. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The very strong diagonals broken up with rectangles help make this photo special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I warmed up to it after reflecting on whether windows should be clean or not ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rippled wake wave in Gullmarsfjorden at Sämstad.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 11:22:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Liquid
Info It's been a while since I nominated something 'almost' abstract, so here goes... All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, now wow for me here. --Ivar (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. I like these artier photos at FPC, it livens things up. Cmao20 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The areas of light and shadow make this composition, and to my eyes, its composition is quite a bit better than that of the usual FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully abstract ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, and although maybe "abstract", has also EV. Anyways, the DOF should be either higher or lower. Also, the change of colour in the left upper corner is IMO not pleasing. —kallerna (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Large part of the image is out of focus --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Uoaei1, it is quite a long DoF for a single shot image. f/6.3 on a 1 inch sensor equals about f/17.2 on a full frame sensor, and that is a high f-number. AFAIK there is no way of focus stacking a wake wave (unless you use the Bullet time method with several cameras), so your expectations for a shot like this might be a bit too high. --Cart (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. To me this is one where the unsharp areas are a help. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iifar. --Fischer.H (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna--Ermell (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar.--Peulle (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It's time to pull the plug on this one. Thanks anyway. --Cart (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater 3434 - Patchewollock Conservation Reserve.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 13:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive details -- Axel ^(talk) 14:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work, IMO one of this author's best. Cmao20 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per others, but there are dust spots that should be cleaned, especially several near the top margin, starting from the left and at least one more a bit above the lower right corner. At a certain point, the things that look like dust spots get so light that it might not be worth bothering with them, but I'd like to see a reduction in the slightly more visible ones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Done, but they were really light. --Ivar (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks. It's good enough now, per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cmao20. Colours and softness of the bokeh give a perfect background. --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cart (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The posture is great. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect --Wilfredor (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmm --Killarnee (T•R•P) 15:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely warm late spring earth tones ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vada Rosignano Livorno La Solvay e le spiaggie bianche.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 13:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Italy
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colors look strange so checking with the embedded info I get: "WARNING: No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac web browsers treat colors randomly." That is a big problem if you want a photo to be FP. --Cart (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for the observation W.carter, I added the information I got from the details of the photo. PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added info, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem with the Colour profile since it's still missing. Take a look using this tool. That info needs to be embedded in the file. I think you can do it with Lightroom. Someone else may know a better way to add it. --Cart (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, after studying all afternoon the program with which I open and slightly change the color of my photos which is irfanview, I finally understood the way to not lose the metadata to my photos. And I learned a new thing thanks to your observations. Thank you! PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition here works as a way to show natural beauty marred by the power plant, but the light isn't the best. It all looks a bit washed out, I'd prefer to see this shot either under bright sunny skies or (perhaps better given the subject) in stormy weather. Quality is not perfect but I could forgive it if the light were more interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding the meaning of the composition of photography. Thanks for your comment.,PROPOLI87 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good but not exceptional recording. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I'm trying to improve myself. PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Eatcha (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian tent turtle (Pangshura tentoria tentoria).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 15:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Testudinidae_(Tortoises)
Info Looks big, but actually in the tortoise family. Shell size is 27cm (11 in). All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice. Tomer T (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely one. Cmao20 (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good composition. How long did you have to wait for the tortoise to take that pose? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are in a boat on the Chambal River near Agra. When we spot a turtle sunning itself, I tell my English-speaking to tell the boatman where to position the boat (for a nice composition) then to move slowly towards the animal (no talking/no moving). I keep on taking shots until it jumps into the water. Charles (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great story! Have you put out any books with photos and stories about how you took them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All mapped out and 2% complete! Only the best-selling (?) Groan Animals is on sale. Charles (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on that book! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added a new version improving sharpening and removing noise, however, it need the author aproval --Wilfredor (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you very much. Charles (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit lack of focus on the eyes but still a nice shot in special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 15:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support So good. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Testudinidae_(Tortoises)

File:Illuminated white and purple facade of the office building Rohm Semiconductor in Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2020 at 03:24:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Japan
Info Op art style. Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intriguing: a photo of a big building which looks to me, at first glance, like a macro of something very small. --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another User:Alvesgaspar style --Wilfredor (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Cmao20 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but I'm seeing a hint of pincushion distortion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to prevent speedy promotion, pending an explanation of why the top edge is curved inwards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem in my view. "Nitpicking?" would be my explanation . Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted the author to weigh in to make sure distortion correction wasn't forgotten by accident. Perhaps the curvature is a natural feature of the building then. I'll Support in any case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, King. The profile of my lens was fixed in Lightroom since the beginning, otherwise the curvature is much more pronounced outwards. I know we can adjust the distorsion even more precisely and I'm grateful for your constructive help -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought this was some 8-bit video game image at first. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Eatcha (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1 moraine lake pano 2019.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2020 at 06:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Alberta
Info created by Chensiyuan - uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive scenery. But please add {{Panorama}} in your file page -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 06:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An impressive scenery, indeed, and in this case I even like the people in the foreground: It is nice to see how they photograph (almost) the same scenery we are looking at, and they remind me of the staffage people once added by painters to give life to their landscape paintings. --Aristeas (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Cart (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Oppose on second thought after reading comments below. --Cart (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Beautiful. There is one subtle dust spot right near the top margin just a little left of center. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Supporting vote crossed out per the remarks below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Big and hight quality Excellent panoramic, however, noise pattern generated by excessive and widespread use of the sharpness filter. The noise generated by high ISO is acceptable and in many cases easy to fix because it uses a pattern recognizable by the artificial intelligence of some applications, but this other noise is destructive and a bad practice in the development process. Sharpening increases image contrast and if you find that highlights or shadows are clipped after you sharpen, use the layer blending controls (if you sharpen a separate layer on Photoshop) to prevent sharpening in highlights and shadows and reduce image noise before sharpening so that you don’t intensify the noise. It is always better to upload the original image first without applying any noise or clarity correction filter and then upload another version to commons --Wilfredor (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Wilfredo, though I'd be open to reconsideration if the image were reprocessed the way he suggests and it had a positive effect. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wilfredor. It's very high resolution and good other than this, but the flaw of the noise pattern is definitely a mistake in processing. Additionally, I feel that whenever anyone sees a picture of Banff National Park it tends to be some variation on this exact view. That's not just a problem on Commons - if you key in Banff National Park into Google Images, the entire top row of search results are variations on this shot. I know it's a very scenic spot but I'd like to see more diversity and completely different compositions. The park is more than 2000 square miles in size, I think we can do better than just having the view from the same place time and again. Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the high resolution (119 MP), we can afford to be a bit lenient on pixel-level quality. If we scale down 50%, the noise issue is no longer significant enough to prevent FP IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of In the same way applying a downsizing the noise would disappear, however, it would also be a bad practice to correct problems because the problem here is not the photo itself but the result of a wrong developing process. If we have this opportunity to improve technically to upload pictures with the best possible quality, why not do it?. It is certainly not a requirement to be FP, but it would be very desirable. --Wilfredor (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Per above and I find the tourists with those shrill colors disturbing. On the other side I find the scene and stitching quality very good Poco a poco (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. -- -donald- (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High noise, visible CAs, and mostly in shadow --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. //Eatcha (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petermann Ranges (AU), Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Uluru, Kuniya Walk -- 2019 -- 3636.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2020 at 12:04:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia#Northern Territory
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 12:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 12:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is anywhere near FP, to be honest. The light ruins the shot, causes CA and a troubled background. Also, a large portion of the rock itself is way too soft.--Peulle (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes, there are very slight CAs, but what means too soft and what is troubled background? I see no lack. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Needs a more interesting sky for compositional reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing really wrong with this shot, but I don't find the composition very interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Eatcha (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sitzbänke DreiE 20200203 005 RAW.png edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2020 at 19:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created/uploaded/nominated by User:PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but it doesn't quite do it for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this, I'm not sure why people are ignoring it. But why PNG? Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: With some photos I need a few days to decide, especially when it's not a clear candidate to me - like it's here. Maybe other users do a similar thing. I'm looking at the photo, thinking that it's not very special, and come day after day and if the photo still doesn't talk to me after a few days, I don't vote or oppose. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: I extracted it from the RAW file to avoid JPEG compression (and artifacts) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I mean ultimately it's your choice, it's just personally I would only use PNG for rendered images or graphics, simply because the file size is smaller, and it's not really possible to tell the difference with the naked eye between JPEGs at high quality and PNGs. Not a reason to oppose though, there's obviously nothing actually wrong with it :) Cmao20 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Per Peulle. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but not exceptional recording. --Fischer.H (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019 ICF Wildwater canoeing World Championships 252 - Anežka Paloudova.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2020 at 20:01:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual water sports
Info created & uploaded by 0x010C - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic, high-resolution action photo. Cmao20 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! More sports photos! --Cart (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good Ezarateesteban 00:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shoot, I added a version with more sharpening and focus(see file history), however, it need the author aproval. Well done --Wilfredor (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly backfocused —Granada (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unsharp face but that's forgivable here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Individual water sports

File:2018-10-11 Victory ceremony (Weightlifting Boys' 77kg) at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics by Sandro Halank–006.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2020 at 15:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created & uploaded by Sandro Halank - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support it may not be the obvious FP, but I found it a very nice unique picture. Regarding copyright, IMHO the doll is de minimis. -- Tomer T (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the doll is too big to be de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the doll looks fine for de minimis. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's about half the size of his head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The doll may be small, but it is placed like if he was promoting it and that makes the photo iffy for me. Toy discussion aside, I find it a too emotionless pose, almost like an android, sorry. --Cart (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your analysis regarding his expression and the somewhat awkward positioning of the doll, but actually that's what makes the picture special for me. It's a good representation of athletes' forced, probably not so successful, merchandise promotion. Tomer T (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I liked the contrast between the stiff face and the cheery doll. The fact that it's a junior contest also adds another aspect to the mix - is the weightlifter a tough guy or just a child? Tomer T (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting interpretation for sure, but I don't think I would have been able to see it without your explanation. The photo doesn't really speak to me very much. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dromaius novaehollandiae - Réserve africaine de Sigean 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2020 at 08:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Casuariidae (Cassowaries)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but no wow either. Btw, COM:OVERCAT problem, I've fixed it for you, you're welcome. --A.Savin 17:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not your sharpest, but still good, and something a bit different. Cmao20 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That face speaks to me, like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial :-) Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smile! --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background is a tad distracting but the composition is great. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good fun, but I'd rotate to have eyes horizontal. Charles (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just waiting to be used in memes ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Casuariidae (Cassowaries)

File:SL Colombo asv2020-01 img10 National Museum.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2020 at 19:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Sri Lanka
Info Building of the National Museum of Colombo built in 1877, all by A.Savin --A.Savin 19:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple, but nice for me, and good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that CA I see on the right side of the building? --Peulle (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked once again but no. Lens correction is what I ~always apply. --A.Savin 13:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20 --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support straight and perfect.--Ermell (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trimeresurus popeiorum, Pope's pit viper - Doi Phu Kha National Park (46846412805).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2020 at 15:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Viperidae_(Vipers)
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A little more room on the left would have been welcome, but really great sharpness, especially on the head! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmmm --Podzemnik (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The kind of beast you prefer to meet on your screen than in the wild :-) Basile Morin (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have to wonder what it is digesting... --Cart (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 17:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
🐍 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. //Eatcha (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Viperidae_(Vipers)

File:Fall in Yukon's Tombstone Territorial Park – Protected areas in Canada Q844692.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2020 at 17:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
Info A dramatic and moody landscape during autumn in Tombstone Territorial Park, Yukon, Canada. created by LaurieSchamber - uploaded by LaurieSchamber - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for finding this hidden gem! Maybe technically not perfect (too dark? some noise?), but IMHO really great. --Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, it is a tiny bit noisy, the EXIF suggests ISO 900 was used so maybe the light was difficult. But it's not really more than a fine luminance noise even at full size. And I'd rather a bit of noise than too much NR leading to an undetailed image. Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't mind the noise but it is just too heavily processed for me and that is confirmed when looking at the exif. (Such as clarity +78 and contrast +52. On a landscape...) --Cart (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, Cart, how did you find those figures? I can't see them in the metadata on the image page. Are you using a different way to view more info in the EXIF? Cmao20 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20 I use that page linked to in COM:FP#Colour profile, Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer. With that you can usually see many things done to a photo online. But do bear in mind that looking at editing numbers doesn't tell the whole story. Usually a photographer is trying to recreate a scene as (s)he saw it and remembered it, and many times that deviates from what the camera captured, such as that the human eye can "see" in HDR when the camera can't in one shot. Many photos here look very realistic even though the numbers in the metadata are all over the place, whereas some photos can look over-processed by just tiny adjustments. You need to be able to read the whole concept and the sheer numbers in the metadata is just one part/help. --Cart (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, will note that tool for future use. Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 17:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing landscape but per Cart. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate a photographer showing darkness as actually dark, but I think the effect could be obtained while making it a little less dark than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding so much 'Clarity' to a photo adds a lot of artificial darkness, that is what that function does, it boosts both the darkest and brightest areas. Very good feature when you are photographing water or glass things (hence the name) but not something you add to a normal landscape photo unless you are going for artificial drama. --Cart (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see. Well, User:LaurieSchamber, if you feel like returning to Commons to edit your file... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, now that I know the extra darkness is contrived. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Can't help but agree with Cart that the image is probably overprocessed. Sorry for wasting your time, everyone who voted. I still like it artistically but I guess it's not really suitable for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crumpled duvet covered with a white cotton duvet cover 1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2020 at 15:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info I imagine this nom will generate a lot of the usual "nothing special" votes because it is a view so familiar to many people. But since no one else here has attempted anything like it, I will give it a try. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely working for me. Nice interplay of light and different shades of grey. An example of finding a strong composition in what at first seems unpromising material. Cmao20 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 50 shades of grey :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was having a sort of bet with myself about how many posts it would take before that comment would pop up on this overwhelmingly male forum. I clocked you just right. --Cart (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice idea, but I think there is something "special" missing, that gives the image more depth --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BW, composition is not pleasing imo. —kallerna (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary, not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice idea and artistic, however, I'm not ready to vote support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I viewed the photo yesterday and again today. The comforter is nicely draped that it comes across as natural.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a great idea, but not enough is happening in the back left corner for me to consider the composition great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink swanboat hosting a real bird on its head, on Shinobazu Pond, Ueno Park, Tokyo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2020 at 02:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Funny photo! Question: Are those little white dots hot pixels or something that was there? For example, there's one between the gull's wings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, They're there. I had to zoom 400% to see which pixel you're talking about. Then I don't think it's worth an update for such small detail. Thanks, I find it funny too -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fun image that deserves FP purely for variety. Good quality as ever. Cmao20 (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we promote on that basis. Not an FP composition for me. Charles (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and the seagull really adds to it. Tomer T (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's funny but it lacks the wow for an FP for me per other opposers. With a better light, background, or if the gull had faced the same way as the boat bird, it might have worked. Sometimes it's the little details that makes a photo. --Cart (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:American and Bridal Veil Falls winter.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2020 at 04:18:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#New York
Info: uncharacteristically stark appearance of the American and Bridal Veil Falls after a cold wave; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything is in shade, the point of view is not optimal (frog-view). —kallerna (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. --Fischer.H (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree. Composition is good, I like the perspective. The lack of jarring light gives the image a perception of icy gloominess. Sharpness-wise, the image isn't too great, but I've seen much worse getting pile-on support. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of the "Wall" of GoT --Llez (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez. Cmao20 (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd like to see the photo kallerna is imagining, but right now, this photo stands by itself as a nominee, and nothing about it is bothering me. I like the viewpoint, the ice forms, the cold waterfalls and the sky, and all told, it works for me as a composition of quality. All that adds up not as merely QI but as FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez and Gerifalte. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gerifalte and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I enjoy the scene but it does lack sharpness IMHO, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a new version improving sharpening and noise, however, it need author aproval. Poco a poco please, take a look --Wilfredor (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good, Wilfredor, thank you, I'd support that version Poco a poco (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Wilfredor, this is definitely an improvement, and I reverted to your version. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United_States#New York

File:Porto Covo January 2020-8.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2020 at 10:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info Breaking waves in Winter, with ship. Taken at Porto Covo, Portugal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A perfectly placed ship on nice waves, how could I not love this. A tad small though. --Cart (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very dramatic scenery, but also pretty low resolution for Nikon D800E. And ship on the right is cropped. --Ivar (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit more to the right and I would have supported this beautiful photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me this photo is absolut excellent. Or should I say: A bit more left were better? -- Spurzem (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sorry. I love the picture, but: The cropped shop at the right is disturbing and the resolution could be better. --XRay ^talk 09:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very dramatic and well composed but it should probably be sharper given the relatively small resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a shame about the cropped ship, though. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. Cropped ship, and I'm not sure about this as the size of an FP in 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. -- Karelj (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Ok, guys, I took the message. A new version has been nominated addressing the issues. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bontecou Lake sunrise clouds.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2020 at 11:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Clouds
Info Clouds over Bontecou Lake in Dutchess County, New York, at sunrise. IMO a special image in terms of light and atmosphere. created by Juliancolton - uploaded by Juliancolton - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technical quality is not enough. Too unsharp and noisy for me.--Ermell (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very pleasant image, but the noise is a big problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm very pleased that Cmao20 thought highly enough of this image to nominate it, I'm in agreement that it's not among my best work or that of Commons. I distinctly remember having accidentally left my tripod at home that morning, forcing me to shoot handheld with ISO boosted and some minus exposure comp. Not ideal. We also just recently promoted an FP of the same (by all accounts insignificant) lake, so I think we can be especially picky with this series of images. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination on the basis that the author doesn't consider it an FP-level photo. I do like it though, Juliancolton - I agree the shadows are a bit noisy because of the conditions you were shooting in, but for me your other FP was of the Milky Way rather than of Bontecou Lake, and this has a quite different composition and atmosphere. But I respect that you don't consider it your best work. (It's still going in my personal collection though.) Cmao20 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aoraki - Mt Cook, Aoraki - Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 07:14:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand#Canterbury (Waitaha)
Info All by me. It's Aoraki - Mt Cook in Aoraki - Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand. The highest point of New Zealand. Please note that we already have this FP of Mt Cook. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bottom left doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning place. Cmao20 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, and the mountains are mostly in shade. —kallerna (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shade doesn't bother me. The landscape is outstanding and the incident light is interesting handled well. --Milseburg (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually didn't notice the snow at bottom left until Charles pointed it out; it doesn't really distract me from the landscape too much. And if it's really that bad, it could be reduced or eliminated with a crop. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Milseburg. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 10:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New Zealand#Canterbury (Waitaha)

File:Government Headquarters in Skopje by night 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 08:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Macedonia
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- -donald- (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely stark, but good. --Cart (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PROPOLI87 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Wonderful composition, but sharpness (for example with f/8) and resolution could be better. --XRay ^talk 16:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per XRay - great composition but image quality could be higher. I'd also prefer a blue hour shot. Cmao20 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. —kallerna (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna, too much is underexposed. --Ivar (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Big parts are just plain black. The rest is not particularly crisp either. Frankly, I don't get it, neither the nom itself nor the supports. Sorry. --A.Savin 13:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I enjoy indeed the black and white combo Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also find it too dark, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 16:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lettenreuth Kirche Decke-20190505-RM-171633.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2020 at 20:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Ceiling of the Catholic parish church St. Laurentius in Lettenreuth. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution and lots of fascinating details to explore. Cmao20 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- Spurzem (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PROPOLI87 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, IMO a little bit too noisy and sharpness could be better. --XRay ^talk 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per XRay. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marine algae in Gullmarsfjorden at Sämstad 4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 11:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Order: Laminariales
Info Strands of Chorda filum growing among Cladophora glomerata. Or: "... as Kirk looked out the bridge window of the Enterprise, he saw the tentacles of the alien lifeform emerging from the nebula...". All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then it turned out to be another Cocteau Twins record cover. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cart (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PROPOLI87 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOLI87, hold on a second... You have not voted for any other photo, are you 'supporting' my photo just because I'm helping you out here on FPC? That is not how it's supposed to be with votes. If that was the reason, you should remove your vote. A vote should be strictly about the photo and not the person who made it. --Cart (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for your photo because I am fascinated by the colors of your photo and also for the subject. I participated in the science wiki and I am sure that your photo in that contest would have had excellent results. In addition I will also vote for other photos. By the way, a question, but why does my PROPOLI87 appear in red? What did I do wrong?

@PROPOLI87: Ok thanks, that is very kind of you. I only wanted to make sure since you are new here on FPC and can still make mistakes. :-) Your name is in red because you haven't activated your user page yet. It is a good way to see who is new to the site and might need extra help and consideration. As soon as you write something on User:PROPOLI87 (A "hi!" is enough) and save it, your signature will turn blue. --Cart (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. thank you PROPOLI87 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2020

Support The late William Turner might have liked this. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. :-) --XRay ^talk 16:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Great to look at and high quality! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Unless I am mistaken Cart, there is much evidence of poor post-processing, like where I have placed a note on the image. There are obvious 'halos' around most of the dark strands. Charles (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Charles, in this case I'm afraid you really are mistaken. Those are not 'halos', the strands are simply hairy. Quote from the WP article: "The fronds bear short colorless hairs in summer." I had to be really careful with the post-processing so I wouldn't ruin this very good photo of those tiny hairs the fronds are covered with. You can only see them in underwater photos of the algae since they cling on to the stem and become "invisible" when you photograph the algae out of water. The fine hairs, almost like a fur, can be seen in this photo as well. I am quite proud of having been able to get such minute details of the algae in these photos, those hairs are only about 1-3 mm long. You can see a drawing of the hairs in fig 1. in this book illustration and fig 31. in this. --Cart (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, many apologies. Charles (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not that weird if you think about it. Since the plant is just strands, the hairs is a way for this algae to radically increase its surface to pick the molecules it needs from the water (it has no roots, just a suction cup that keeps it attached to the bottom). A trick nature uses in many lifeforms, like the Intestinal villus in our own intestines. --Cart (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image, Cart... Sadly, when I look off the end of a dock, I usually just see dull water and maybe a fish :( --GRDN711 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really should try to take a few photos and just play a bit with the controls in Lightroom. You might be surprised what you can actually see with a few adjustments. :-) --Cart (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, would like to see the original photo. —kallerna (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like one of the first scenes from a Flying Spaghetti Monster Genesis story :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Elisabeth of Hungary (18. century, stained glass).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2020 at 18:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Stained glass
Info "unknown" creator, uploaded, nominated by -- Mile (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The border really helps the composition of the window greatly, and of course the photography is well-done as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cart (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I can't see anything exceptional in this subject --Wilfredor (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ohh well, art is in the eye of beholder. You could enlight me (us)... --Mile (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art should not be compared especially when they are two totally different objects. I think that the stained glass window is very simple, that's why it is my vote. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Of course, we have much photos like this but that is no reason to decline. I think it is technical good, beautiful colors, sharp and nice to see. -- Spurzem (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to agree with Wilfredor on this one, sorry. It' a nice glass but I don't find it exceptional like I eg. this image. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hoverfly cockade stack-20190809-RM-064310.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2020 at 23:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)
Info Hoverfly on the unopened blossom of a cockade.Focus stack of 15 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! I can not imagine that it could be better. -- Spurzem (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one again. Cmao20 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That was on my list of files to nominate, too. I've gotten behind on my nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! --Ivar (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are really getting the hang of this. :-) --Cart (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply excellent, btw Topaz can improve it too :) --Wilfredor (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Wilfredor: The program is good but the question is whether this is necessary in this case. The image result is actually a little better, but the overall impression does not change at all. I don't find the result overwhelming in relation to the time and also financial expenditure, but I will try a little more. How much is your commission? ;-) --Ermell (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ermell I do not receive any commission for promoting this software, however, I must accept that I have become a fan of such programs :) your photo is spectacular and you don't need any of those tricks and gadgets to improve it --Wilfredor (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't serious about that, but you deserved it. I have tested it and am convinced of it now because it is good and helpful. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another Ermell's shot that discourages me from trying to do macro myself :) --Podzemnik (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really well done Ermell apart from two antennae (see note). Easy to rectify. Charles (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thank God you know your way around. Thanks for the advice.--Ermell (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good now. Charles (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slam-dunk support Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)

File:MIRIAD Island.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2020 at 13:10:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscape panoramas
Info created by Philippa Jones - uploaded by Philippa Jones - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit unsharp in places, but I'm not sure if that's the photo or if it's designed that way. Also, can I just ask: the artist who made this is also definitely the Commons user who uploaded it, right?--Peulle (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just found the image on Media_needing_categories and make the nomination, I don't have any contact with the author. --Cvmontuy (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very unsharp --Wilfredor (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks very nice, but that's about it – doesn't really seem to tick any of the boxes listed in the guidelines. And the digital reproduction is indeed pretty soft. --El Grafo (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cvmontuy (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama Alpes depuis Bella Tola.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2020 at 20:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Valais
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Gzzz -- Gzzz ^zz 20:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (humbly) -- Gzzz ^zz 20:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems to contain errors that are preventing me from viewing it at full size, but at a smaller size, I see posterization lines in the sky, and I'd like to be able to see it at full size to check on whether they disappear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a stitched panoramic : there are actually some posterization lines in the sky... I can view it at full size... Does anybody else meet the same problem ? Gzzz ^zz 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you sure it's straight? It looks like the right part of the range is climbing up. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is straight, but the mountains on the left are closer and taller ! Gzzz ^zz 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Outstanding motif, but the banding in the sky isn't excellent. --Milseburg (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful view but the faults in the sky are distracting. I don't like how it gets darker at the sides too, I'm sure it's natural but it still looks quite odd. Cmao20 (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Not the best light for this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination – Gzzz ^zz 18:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cámara Alta de Prusia, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2020 at 20:26:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Prussian Senate, Berlin, Germany. The building was the upper house of the Preußischer Landtag, the parliament of Prussia from 1850 to 1918. Together with the lower house, the House of Representatives (Abgeordnetenhaus), it formed the Prussian bicameral legislature. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that: 1) The right side is not completely straight and it's leaning out. 2) The moon is overexposed. Any chance fixing it? From the file name I see that it's HDR so maybe you can source it from one of the images? Also, there is a halo around the moon. 3) The light trails from cars have gaps in them. It doesn't look very "natural". --Podzemnik (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik and overall sharpness is just average. --Ivar (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would prefer blue hour photo. —kallerna (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will work on the file today to adress the mentioned issues (well, there isn't included a blue-hour fix :)) Poco a poco (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Podzemnik, Ivar: I made some improvements to address your comments --Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd prefer the blue hour too but well, not all shots need to be done during the blue hour and the photo stands out as a night shot too :) Thanks Poco for fixing the issues that I mentioned above. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tifar. -- Karelj (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Poco, could you possibly sharpen the upper parts of the building? Nice photo, but I think an FP should be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: Done Poco a poco (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks. My vote would be irrelevant now, but the photo is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mulga Parrot male 1 - Patchewollock.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2020 at 15:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Psittaculidae_(True_Parrots)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very appropriate with that cracker-colored background for a ~~Polly~~parrot. :-) --Cart (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! Cmao20 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Psittaculidae_(True_Parrots)

File:Sierpinski-Pyramide Spitze 8K OpenCL HQ 20200221 002.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2020 at 17:07:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

$Image showing the context of higher and lower dimensional fractals (based on triangles) via shadow.$

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated#Physics
Info Image showing the context of higher and lower dimensional fractals (based on triangles) via shadow. The fractal (3D) is based on the form of the shadow (2D), created/uploaded/nominated by User:PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The black figure and the dark blue shadow are interesting. The rest of the image just sits there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More elements added @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the review, I added a reflective floor and pyramids next to and over the original. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's better, but the two solid-color figures on the lower left and lower right still inhibit eye movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Interesting and no doubt the result of a lot of work, but too compositionally commplex for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cityscape and skyline by the Copenhagen Lakes, Denmark - (36018109956).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2020 at 22:14:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Denmark
Info created by Kristoffer Trolle - uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by B2Belgium -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "super high resolution", I don't think so... --Cart (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can look inside people's living rooms from the other side of the lake... But that wasn't why I nominated it. Rather the mood, the colours, the composition, the fact that it captures a historical landmark (the chicken). Etc. -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the van is completely washed out. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the description and the file name are not very good. "Super cool" and "super high" are very POV statements that should be removed before the nomination. Also, I think that it needs a bit of a crop from the top and the bottom. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked into renaming the file before the nomination but didn't see any category that was immediately applicable. I suppose this could still be done later? -- B2Belgium (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B2Belgium, a file should always be as neat and tidy as possible before you make the nomination. You have made enough noms to know that. Fixing things after the nom is a bad idea, since most people tend to forget to do that and doing it during the nom will mess with the codes. But I will fix this for you now and sort out the name, codes and description to get this messy nom back on track. --Cart (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks very nice, but there are stitching errors on the column of windows under the "IR" of "IRMA KAFFE" -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I don't have the technical expertise to fix this. Maybe someone else knows how to do this, otherwise I will withdraw the nomination. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a error, this is an architectural feature.--Ermell (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the building is not straight: [9], [10]. Good news. Thank you, Ermell! -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting. I had a doubt, but looking at the rows of bricks, they really looked strange at a certain level. Now I know this is weird in reality :-) Thanks, Ermell -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support 132 mpx seems super-high to me . I enjoy the different colours of reflected light here. Cmao20 (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image quality deteriorates at the left and espec. at the right (starting below and right of “friske” and “AG” the building and the trees are not sharp anymore), but overall this is a good image, and together with the reflections it is really impressive and beautiful. Of course, we should remove the advertising from the file name when the nomination is over ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 15:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice for sure, but I haven't decided whether the composition is an FP to me or not. However, I do see posterization in the sky that ideally should be smoothed out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eatcha (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Linear arabesque isn't working for me and there is posterization in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Halos on building edges at sides; looks overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Facades of Handelskade, Willemstad, Curaçao - February 2020.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2020 at 23:01:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Curaçao
Info Dutch colonial architecture - including Penha Building from 1708 - on Handelskade, a historic waterfront in the district of Punda, Willemstad, the capital of Curaçao; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good quality, pretty buildings, very useful to illustrate an encyclopedia, blog, etc., and the non-water portions of the scene are interesting to look at, but the water doesn't help the composition, which is uninspiring to me. I'll suggest a crop that might work better for me (no guarantees on how I vote before I see it, but I'll oppose this version if it comes to it). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, Ikan Kekek, a tighter crop actually helps the composition. I won't remove the ocean completely though. This is an image of a waterfront scene, after all. (also pinging Seven Pandas). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This works for me, and I think it's pretty much the crop I suggested. I didn't want you to get rid of all the water, just enough of it so that it provides a horizontal movement and doesn't kind of sit there. This did it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp photo, good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Spurzem (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better crop. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Cmao20 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, but wonder if the sky is too purple? Charles (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hmm, not on my (calibrated) screen. And I didn't tweak the color channels anyway, so it should be ok to the best of my knowledge --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks. Charles (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Michiel. --Aristeas (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Love the buildings, but I would like to see something done about the purple edges on the clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Household utensils - artwork - Malsch 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2020 at 05:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other objects in landscapes
Info An artwork, made partly by nature, partly by man; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun picture. Cmao20 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something completely diffent. --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support New ways of interacting with household utensils (nice detail on the upper right) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought: what should I do with this. After looking a few times, I found the photo increasingly special.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Other objects in landscapes

File:Annapurna Massif-5133.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2020 at 11:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape and good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the purple fringing is strange (see note) Charles (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A nice shot, but apart from the center I would hope for more sharpness for this sort of scene. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA, not sharp from the sides, halo effect, blown/almost blown whites, dull POV. Quite common mountain-image. —kallerna (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the scenery is really nice, the side blur is annoying, especially at the left. Sorry, --A.Savin 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Technical questions aside, I find this composition less than great, mainly because the sky doesn't help it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annapurna South-5120.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2020 at 07:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info Annapurna South, also called Annapurna Dakshin or Moditse, is a mountain in the Annapurna Himal range of the Himalayas, and the 101st-highest mountain in the world. It was first ascended in 1964, and is 7,219 metres tall. created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are 3 very evident dust spots on the left side of the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ikan Kekek:

Done dust spot removed.--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you got them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unnatural dark sky. -- -donald- (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep in mind that at > 4000m the atmosphere is much thinner than at sea level, which leads to much more UV and other short-wave light in the spectrum (Michael Freeman even has a section on this type of light that he calls "High Altitude Blue" in his Capturing Light: The Heart of Photography). Combine that with the low air pollution you may still find in remote areas like this, and you do indeed get much bluer skies. If you brighten that up, it's going to look even ~~more unrealistic~~ less like what most of us are used to. --El Grafo (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to see if the sky is too dark, is to compare with photos of clouds taken from airplanes. Cumulus clouds are generally at an altitude of "less than 2,000 m", which is considerably lower than this photo. The dark sky here looks just fine to me. --Cart (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks so uncompromising and hard. <shudders> I like that faint plume of snow blowing on the left side of the ridge. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd need to see the RAW file. I was looking at this view at the same time of day and about the same time of year (November 2019) I wish the sky had been this colour! Air pollution is not low at low altitudes around Pokhara. The image is not taken from 4000m. Charles (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization suggests that this was taken from Annapurna Base Camp (4130m), and zooming around a bit in GoogleEarth and comparing it with the view in File:Annapurna Base Camp (10).JPG, that looks credible to me. What makes you think it was taken from further down? --El Grafo (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just a high mountain. I can't see anything outstanding about this photo. --Milseburg (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I mean, sure it's just a mountain, but it's a very beautiful mountain. One feels cold just looking at it, and that's what a photo of this kind should achieve. Per Cart there is no great reason to see the sky colour as unnatural. And I like how you've resisted the temptation to pull back the highlights too much and left the snow as bright white. Cmao20 (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 10:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg, plus there’s a speckled zone along the edge looking like overprocessing. --Kreuz schnabel 19:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cart is correct about the sky (although I do wonder why there's a slight halo around the mountain), but I concur with other opposes: There's really not enough wow here in a static picture of a high mountain's peak against the stratospheric sky. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheldonian Theatre Interior, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2020 at 11:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United Kingdom
Info Another Diliff interior, but not a church this time. This is the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford, which was constructed in Restoration England to a design by Christopher Wren. Based on an engraving of the first-century BC Theatre of Marcellus in Rome, it is used today for university lectures and ceremonies. The ceiling frescoes, depicted beautifully in this image, are by Robert Streater, King Charles II's court painter. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know this building well. It's also used by the Oxford Philharmonic for concerts. You need to do something to improve the ceiling frieze paintings. Charles (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even with fasces. Nice quality, I'm okay with the patterns on the bottom --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taken on my birthday, so I like it even more. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 08:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wit oorzwammetje s.l. (Crepidotus variabilis s.l.) 06-02-2020. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2020 at 07:05:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Inocybaceae
Info created & uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating my photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a bunch of little dust spots. If they're edited out, I'll be happy to support. They're fairly light, but their shape is unmistakable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The background of this photo is the trunk of a beech tree. A beech tree has a smooth trunk but there are often spots on it. The photo shows natural (earth colors). I can possibly remove some annoying spots. Do you want to indicate these spots? Many thanks in advance.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. spots removed. I hope. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added notes about dust spots you missed. Don't go crazy if you can't see all of them, but see what you can do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good enough for me now. There's arguably one light one left, but at this point, it's chasing phantoms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Biser Todorov (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is mentioning " Diameter only 9 mm". Is this for grading it better - so written for us here, or this "culture" is in normal beeing much biger and we have small one here ? If this is for grading it i would remove it. --Mile (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I thought it would be useful to state the diameter. Below you will find the English description. There, too, mention is made that it is a small mushroom. If you find the diameter misleading, I can remove it.

Members of this genus are small, convex to fan-shaped, and sessile. Species have cheilocystidia^[1] Spore prints are yellow-brown to brown. All species of Crepidotus are known to be secondary decomposers of plant matter; most are saprobic on wood. Little is known about the edibility of various species; the usually small and insubstantial specimens discourage mycophagy.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ Singer, Rolf (1986) The Agaricales in modern taxonomy, Koenigstein: Koeltz Scientific Books ISBN: 3-87429-254-1.

Support -- very sharp photo of hard to shoot macro. I like knowing it's 9mm, it gives perspective. Seven Pandas (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one, good sharpness and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for nominating my photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 22:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But would have been better to get closer with a macro lens Poco a poco (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Inocybaceae

File:Lotte World Tower In Jamsil (144738473).jpeg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2020 at 15:14:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#South Korea
Info created by Imported from 500px Jongjin Lee (archived version) - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Exj -- Exj Talk 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Exj Talk 15:14, 29 February 2020 (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: Severely distorted and unsharp. Please compare with other FPs, at full size, in the same gallery before you make a nomination. --Cart (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2020 (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.

Candidates Closed -- Exj Talk 08:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[isbn3-87429-254-1-1] Singer, Rolf (1986) The Agaricales in modern taxonomy, Koenigstein: Koeltz Scientific Books ISBN: 3-87429-254-1.

[1]