Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2016

File:3 CATs.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2016 at 11:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded and nominated by SKas -- KSK (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I give this picture credit for being an unusual composition, but the image doesn't wow me and the background is too fuzzy for my taste. Interesting idea, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Pity, the idea is really good. But even the caterpillars are not sharp. --Kreuzschnabel 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Btw, compo would be much better with the caterpillars more to the right, looking towards center --Kreuz schnabel 06:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 11:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition. I can not say that the caterpillars are not sharp. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems as if the machines are paying homage to the wilderness ... I like the way the points of the bucket arms echo the mountain summits above. Yes, the peaks are hazed in ... but for once they're not the subject of the image, are they? Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition. --Ralf Roleček 09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the composition, and the cats are sharp enough for me. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 20:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandslange.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2016 at 21:07:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a Wilfredo's social work. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing, really it's art and hight EV, wow. Look like a picture mine --The Photographer (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a good composition, but could it be sharpened a bit? I think that compositions like this, in order to wow, probably need to be sharper, although I do note that 3 people disagree with me so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to Oppose this. It's a nice picture but doesn't wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a special enough idea to make up for the low quality. Noisy towards the top, generally unsharp. --Kreuzschnabel 09:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The "noise" at the top is soot from diesel buses and the soot is also on the white-painted bricks, the image is from a bus garage in Aarhus, Denmark. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some still life, not bad. You should put that lamp ON. --Mile (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the building is demolished. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, I feel 1960's mood :) --Laitche (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. IMO the location should be added to filename and description. --XRay ^talk 05:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture of the year (British Journal of Photography style) ;-). No honestly, refreshingly different! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Verde78 (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 22:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice forms. I like the way the clean lines and grid play off the grittiness of the setting. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 20:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Château de Caumont - Château Renaissance - 21 - 2016-05-14.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2016 at 13:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by MathieuMD - uploaded by MathieuMD - nominated by MathieuMD -- Mathieu MD (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mathieu MD (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Focus seems a bit soft to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose Bad compozition. --Verde78 (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support Focus is pretty soft for the bottom quarter of the image, but I like this overall. INeverCry 04:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I am not a fan of this lighting, which leaves the building underexposed, when it seems that an image that showed it in full sunlight could have been possible. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Verde78. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 20:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dianthus carthusianorum Neulengbach 20160611 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2016 at 05:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Order_:_Caryophyllales
Info Close-up of Carthusian Pink (Dianthus carthusianorum). All by -- Uoaei1 (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Oppose - Nice flower, but at full size, it's glary and not as sharp as some FP flowers have been. Of course, to even zoom in that much on any basis is impressive, but as interesting as the results are, I don't think they make this one of the very best photos on the site. I expect that others will disagree, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Compared with other flowers, this one is also more challenging, because it is so small: its diameter is just about 20mm. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Fair point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstraction. Sharp enough for me, considering the DOF being worked with here; I don't think I could have done better. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. While it’s really good and certainly QI/VI it lacks a bit wow to be featured, and the softness doesn’t help. --Kreuz schnabel 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ali Zifan 02:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Verde78 (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support INeverCry 04:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 02:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't the image oversaturated? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These flowers are very intensive in color --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess it's all just a matter of taste. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 20:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Eastern Grey Squirrel.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 19:51:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Tomfriedel / Birdphotos.com - uploaded by Tomfriedel / Birdphotos.com - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 19:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 19:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a sweet squirrel picture. I particularly like the sharpness of the left foot, and I'm OK with the slight softness of part of the head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and good. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 14:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support "They're so cute when they sit like that!" – Gary Larson. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama of the Tiber with the broken bridge.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 14:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The light doesn't seem close to optimal to me - it's glary toward the top and right and probably overly dark toward the lower left. Parts of the photo seem to lack a pinpoint focus, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Glare, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 20:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Opening in to the Narrow Path above the Siri Bolan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 22:01:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by James Atkinson - uploaded by Atko~commonswiki - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It looks like the lithograph is somewhat damaged, for example by highly visible foxing. I'm not sure that in this unrestored form, the condition of the image is good enough for a feature. So I'll leave that decision up to others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Restoration is needed. INeverCry 18:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some chromatic fringing, and I suspect there will be text and other parts of the original presentation of the lithograph outside of the area shown - those are key parts of the image's encyclopedic value, and need to appear. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Can we also do something about those brown spots? Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 20:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uitzicht over de Bekhofplas. Locatie, natuurterrein Beekdal Linde Bekhofplas 13.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 12:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Dominicus Johannes Bergsma (Famberhorst) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the reflections in the water, and the branches and foliage in the left foreground help to enable a circular eye movement around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Ikan Kekek for nominating this photo. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good light. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 02:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very watercolor-like. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 20:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salagou Lake, Celles cf01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2016 at 17:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The only thing I quibble with, marginally, is the right crop, given the way it cuts into the tree. A crop just a bit to the left might be better compositionally. But I support a feature of this restful picture, in any case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours!! --A.Savin 11:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful Ali Zifan 14:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 01:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's the way a landscape shot should look like. Very high quality, thoroughly composed, beautiful cold-warm contrast with the yellow in the mid part of the photo and the nice blue of the sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ferrocarril en el salar de Carcote, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 70.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 08:46:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info FCAB railway crossing the Carcote salt flat, southwestern Bolivia. The train covers the route Antofagasta - Calama - Ollagüe - Uyuni - La Paz, from 0 metres over the sea level in the coastal city of Antofagasta to over 4,500 metres (14,800 ft) and has a total length of 1,537 km (955 mi). The locomotives have engines EMD GR12 2402, Clyde GL26C-2 2010 and Clyde GL26C-2 2005 whereas the Ascotán salt flat has a surface of 108 square kilometers (42 sq mi). All by me, Poc o² 08:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 17:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 00:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 02:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meiosis Stages.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2016 at 21:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Ali Zifan -- Ali Zifan 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Certainly useful, so a candidate for Valued Image/Quality Image, but not particularly beautiful, so not a good Featured Picture candidate, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ikan Kekek I hoped you compare it to other images in its scope (Computer-generated/Biology). Even though it is small, it can be resized without reducing the image quality since it is a SVG. It also passed under the W3C validator without any errors. A complex illustration is quite a bit more work than a click on a camera :) Ali Zifan 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't devalue the work that went into this; I just don't find it beautiful and therefore don't believe it should be a Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support very well done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a high EV and very well done. It is a pity that there are little FPs about this, and also, it is a SVG, meaning, you can enlarge it without reducing quality even to 10000000000000000000000000... px! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please don't forget the tips that I gave you --The Photographer (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. We need more of this kind :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality image with great content--Freshman404^Talk 09:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 02:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two of Kongelige livgarde Amalienborg Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2016 at 17:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking "one", they are "two" ! Kongelige Livgarde at Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, Denmark.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 20:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Due to personal involvement, but it did made me think of an FPC of yours nominated five years minus one day ago with another shadow. It appears this nomination starts out more succesfull. I am glad you have not given up on the shadows. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The silhouettes reminds me of pictures from my childhood illustrating the fairytale The Steadfast Tin Soldier by Hans Christian Andersen. Illustrations like this. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support one or two? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At full size, I see two noses. Then, two. I guess.😜--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good shot, windows above disturb, since shadow is important this could be croped as shown. Panorama suits this. --Mile (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review and comment. I could maybe agree with the idea of crop below (less than suggested), but surely not above. The window does not disturb so much IMO. It does not disturb at all, because there is anothe window "sharing" the composition--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting effect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good shot in many respects. --Code (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes you think about what you're really looking at for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Flamants roses sur le Lac de Tunis.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2016 at 09:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, I like the flamingos, but I don't like the hazy composition behind them that isn't very interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dear -- Ikan Kekek thank you but the sight looks like that 2 hours before sunset and due to the high temperature the background seems a bit foggy. --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I certainly understand that, but that explanation doesn't make the picture featurable in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ -- Ikan Kekek I got it my friend I will make my photos better next time. --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Absolutely! Keep trying. You are a good photographer, and voting against a feature shouldn't be interpreted as a statement that this photo is not good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can see what you were thinking you saw, but unfortunately it has turned out to be one of those that weren't all you thought they might be when you look at what you got. But it does show that you were trying. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warszawa - synagoga z Gwoźdźca 3.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2016 at 21:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. INeverCry 04:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As INC said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow, sorry. I don’t get it. What is it – part of a ceiling, of a window? Certainly the paintings are beautiful but we assess the photographic work which does not convince me here. --Kreuz schnabel 07:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This picture may help clarify to you what we're looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice color and detail. Probably featurable if it were evenly lit ... as it is the dimmer areas are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc National de Jabal Zaghouan 177.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2016 at 07:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like this picture and thought of nominating it myself. However, there's a smudge a bit to the right of the left margin that should be explained. I suspect it's just a darker part of a cloud, and if so, that's no problem and I would support a feature, but please address it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @ -- Ikan Kekek thank you ! yes it is a darker part of the cloud : you can verify that at the ame level to the right there is a similar smudge but it is clearer that it is a part of the cloud .--IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks "too hot" (too white) due to sunlight for me. -- Pofka (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ -- Pofka but my friend that how the shight looks like at noon in that period of the year the temperature was about 35 C° and we were at the top of the mountain. --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @IssamBarhoumi: I know. But that is not a good timing for me. Never liked such "hot" pictures with blown colors. Maybe that's just my opinion and others will support you as they did so far. -- Pofka (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Error in {{reply to}}: Input contains forbidden characters. Ok I got it my friend and i ll will make better next time. --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated sky, and frankly the image is just too static. We have to choose between the cloud and the mountain, with the background mostly obscured and hazy. The cloud dominates the mountain too much IMO. And the image tries to take in too much ... perhaps a closer view of the summit, without the shade, might have had a chance. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barn swallow (young bird) at Tennōji Park in Osaka, June 2016 III.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 00:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I may end up as the odd man out here, but I find that composition weird, because not only the bird but also the twig look like they're floating in mid-air, with no indication of solid ground anywhere in the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 02:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might even prefer that one. I'm also used that barn swallows have somewhat different tones, but I'd assume it's the of case of some regional differences (Estonian vs Japanise birds) and not the issue with the tones of the image. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinarily I might complain about there being too much dead space, but the space around the bird isn't dead ... the bokeh gives it just enough life. In fact, it emphasizes the fragility of the bird's existence. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case (nicely put!). —Bruce1ee^talk 13:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Farida Arriany, c. 1960 (signed).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2016 at 13:30:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People (#Portrait)
Info created by Tati Studio, Jakarta - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 16:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait, good restoration. --Yann (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful subject captured well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Florence Earle Coates Platinum Print 3 - Restoration.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2016 at 17:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by unknown photographer - scanned by Londonjackbooks - restored and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you should restore the oval border too.--Jebulon (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, compared to the original, but this photograph was pasted atop the paper from what I can tell, and excessive restoration would conceal this. I try to leave in some signs of the way an image was made. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The photo was pasted into the front pages of a volume of poetry, as scanned. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Kadavar-Bandfoto.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2016 at 21:42:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by Menschenmaterial 21:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Menschenmaterial 21:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Striking portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An excellent photograph that should be on the back cover of an album. I like the idea of putting the band in the seats, strengthening the connection with the fans. Daniel Case (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support When the subject is a psychedelic rock band, you'd normally expect something like this – weird colors and sweaty musicians on a stage. The muted colors of the seats, their repeating pattern, the band members sitting there with neatly brushed hair … somehow this doesn't look "right" on multiple levels, and that's what I like about it. --El Grafo (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Nevuas.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2016 at 17:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Géder Abrahão - nominated by ArionEstar -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another dawn-foggy forest composition. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 18:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grand lighting excuses for the noise. --Kreuz schnabel 19:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Spurzem (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Ali Zifan 21:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 01:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - In this case, I disagree with Kreuzschnabel: This photo doesn't wow me, but I would support it if it could be denoised. I don't like how the near trees look at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would also like to denoise it, in full resolution unacceptable. Otherwise good pic. -- -donald- (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Kreuzchnabel I can overlook the noisy part when so much else went right. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plassy shipwreck 2016b.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2016 at 12:31:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created by Triton - uploaded by Triton - nominated by Triton -- Triton (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Triton (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 16:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice, but please add location coordinates. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Done Triton (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite good and striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This here is neither a reason to oppose or support if fixed for me, but for info there is purple fringe on the guard rail at left, and a little bit of red CA too (hard to see it). Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Christian Ferrer, I tried to correct some CA. Don't hesitate to put a note on the picture to show more. Thanks! Triton (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love rusty grounded ships myself. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 16:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosa Borbonica.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2016 at 18:31:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Rosaceae
Info all by Hubertl 18:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl 18:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two thumbs up. -- -donald- (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Très séduisant.--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stunning quality, but why such a tight crop? The buds at the top and bottom right point to the edges to the frame and give me the impression that they need (more) space to "breathe". Also the flower itself is squeezed at the left edge.
Support Really stands out at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aber natürlich! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloemen en knoppen van Vingerhoedskruid (Digitalis purpurea). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 04:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Plantaginaceae.
Info Flowers and buds of Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea). Location, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by User:Famberhorst - nominated by User:Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty flowers, enough of the plant is sharp enough for my taste, and I find this bokeh totally fine. Nice composition, too. In short, I do think this is solidly good enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dull blueish lighting of the lower part spoils it for me. We’ve got better lit photographs of this species (though few of comparable quality, admittedly). --Kreuz schnabel 09:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such nice detail. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Hubertl 13:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Christian cross at Salagou Lake cf01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 11:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple and beautiful. Congrats.--Jebulon (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 02:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone. Aside from everything else, I love your sky. The combination of colors is so natural and unnoisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect -- Thennicke (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm excited! --Milseburg (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice deep field on a very striking scene. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Hubertl 13:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Lichen Cladonia portentosa and Hypogymnia physodes.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2016 at 21:48:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Lichen
Info Lichen Cladonia portentosa and Hypogymnia physodes from Carinthia, Austria. All by Hubertl 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love that lichen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - But what's the background? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Black velvet, Chris. It´s not a studio work, I just had a table with this piece of cloth. No extra lights, all made under an big apple tree. --Hubertl 06:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. A bit shallower DOF may have been nice, if that's the case, but still fine with me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was a workshop, how to realize typical studio works - in this case focus stacking (21 single shots) - under non studio conditions. At home, I would have used a black glass plate, like this one: --Hubertl 06:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Btw: I use as background black matt Oracal film -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, George, quite a good idea. --Hubertl 10:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 03:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm lichen this one! Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Hubertl 13:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parque Estadual Ilha do Mel.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2016 at 11:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Kendy Fujita - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the colours and reflections. --ElBute (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 20:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Quality isn't excellent but i like composition....and 7--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Blue of sky seems a little unreal, perhaps suggesting a little too much tinkering with it in post (also supported by the thin metadata). But not a dealbreaker for an otherwise excellently composed and detailed image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the waves are clearly overexposed but for now the composition prevent me to oppose Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Hubertl 13:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:2016-06-10 Blaues Wunder.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2016 at 12:24:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by Je-str -- Je-str (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Relatively straightforward good composition and informative description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question The field of view does not look huge, so I would be interested to know whether a rectillinear projection version would be possible. Personally, I think that would be preferable for architecture. --DXR (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kann man machen, der Bildwinkel ist etwa 140 Grad. Aber die Unterschiede wären minimal, als dass sich das lohnen würde. Woran hast du eigentlich erkannt, dass es keine geradlinige Projektion ist? Je-str (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A QI for sure but it doesn't distinguish itself much from any other well-taken picture of a bridge. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. I miss the little "+" necessary for a FP. Good picture otherwise.--Jebulon (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Hubertl 13:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral John Dahlgren - NARA - 528718 edit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 09:56:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People

Info created by Mathew Brady restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is another portrait from the series of military leaders of the american Civil War by Mathew Brady. Please notice the wonderful quality of this image (sharpness of the face...). But the original (ca.1860 - 1865) was strongly damaged, and I submit to you the restoration work I've done here. As you can see, it was a real and difficult challenge (please open the following file at full size for comparison). Many scratches, dust, dirt, spots etc. due to age, glass broken... Rear Admiral John A. Dahlgren (1809 - 1870) is well known for beeing a great organizer of the US navy, and a world famous specialist of naval artillery -- Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 02:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 01:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Akademie Mont-Cenis-Sonnenuntergang-2016-02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 16:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Although both nominations are of the same object at the same time, the perspective is very different justifying both nominations. If you disagree, please let me know.
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like them both. INeverCry 17:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure it is a strategical idea to nominate both at the same time: maybe some reviewers will feel obliged to chose. Well, as for me, I support this one.--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I agree with Jebulon that putting these two photos back to back may not be to the advantage of the one that appeals to the viewer less. To me, the other one is pretty close to being a slam-dunk Featured Picture. This one, I'm unsure of. Overall, I think the combination of the angle between the trees and the building, the interesting view of the innards of the building's structure, the rocks and gravel path and the sunset and cloud patterns justifies featuring this picture, too, but I won't be shocked if it isn't featured, in the end. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support both images are great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 07:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 10:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blitze strahlen of the setting sun could be a little better, but overall a very nice image that, were it on an album cover, might help get me interested in the band. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 01:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Akademie Mont-Cenis-Sonnenuntergang-2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 16:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Although both nominations are of the same object at the same time, the perspective is very different justifying both nominations. If you disagree, please let me know.
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Congratulations, Tuxyso! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this image more valuable than the other one. Nice capture. Anand2202 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The two nominations are relevant, no worry. I support this one.--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 02:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I much prefer this picture, partly because the fence provides a great counterpoint to the building that's lacking in the other photo and partly because the sky is magnificent in this picture and good but not so striking in the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This could also go in the Natural Phenomena/Reflections category -- Thennicke (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support both images are great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 10:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! Great color, excellent lines. Atsme 📞 14:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better than the other one. The area around the dusk is a little waxy but so much else in this potentially problematic image worked. If this were the album cover, I'd probably buy it just for that (but after all, any band that would use this as album cover is probably the sort of band I'd like anyway). If this were the cover of a company's annual report, I'd consider investing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The glass... --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 01:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berliner Dom, Ostseite, 160402, ako.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2016 at 12:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info My intention was to show the transition between night and day. Furthermore, this view of the cathedral isn't very common. I hope you like it and I'm curious for your comments. There's one easter egg hidden in the picture. Can you find it? All by me. -- Code (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While trying to find the eastern egg, I found a dustspot. --Hubertl 13:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hubertl: Haha, very good. Can you give me a hint, please? I don't see it (maybe my display is just too dirty). --Code (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab´s dir eingezeichnet... --Hubertl 14:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie. Da muss man erst zu FPC, um auf Staubflecken hingewiesen zu werden. Werde ich heute Abend korrigieren. Was ist eigentlich gerade bei euch in Österreich los? --Code (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ein interessanter Fall von: Gesetze müssen eingehalten werden. Bei einer Differenz von 30.000 Stimmen zwischen zwei Bewerbern kein Wunder. Ist nur heilsam. Gäbe es solche VfGh-Entscheidungen auch wo anders, dann hätte es möglicherweise nie einen George W. Bush als Präsidenten gegeben, sondern Al Gore. --Hubertl 16:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dust spots removed. Thanks for your hint. --Code (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support High quality, nice evening light. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso: It was early morning, but thank you! --Code (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost perfect now, even when I don´t believe in Easter Mysteries And the possible Smartphone photographer is not a Smartphone-Photographer, IMHO. But I have no idea, what this thing on the left side of the central dome really is. --Hubertl 17:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 22:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea, and even more so the fact that it worked. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 01:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camille Saint-Saëns in 1900 by Pierre Petit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2016 at 12:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Pierre Petit - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is by a fairly notable photographer, so the carte-de-visite mounting adds value, and is thus part of the image. It shouldn't be cropped (at least, not in the featured version - for articles, we can use en:Template:CSS image crop or the local equivalents to crop as desired, or upload an extracted image.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a fine photo at thumbnail size, which is about the size of a carte de visite. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 01:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Common Owl.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 16:01:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Anand2202 - uploaded by Anand2202 - nominated by User:Anand2202 -- Anand2202 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anand2202 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but the owl is over-exposed, and he gets a bit lost in this composition. INeverCry 17:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NeverCry. The owl needs to be identified to species level, scientific name included. The image is overcategorized. --Cayambe (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a nice capture, but I don't think a photo with so much unsharp vegetation in the foreground should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Very little sharpness, composition is distracting and arguably mostly unnecessary in small image. WB seems to be off kilter too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 01:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embalse de Puente Nuevo in Cordoba.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2016 at 11:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ElBute (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - Very good composition but very gray. Might look better as a black & white photo, as the lack of color would really bring out the excellent qualities of the variation of light and shadow and the overall composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC) - Now Oppose in favor of the black & white version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I totally agree with you. I'm into artistic photography and I can tell you that this picture really works in B&W. But I didn't dare to turn it into B&W because I thought Commons users wouldn't be willing to miss colour information. --ElBute (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have featured other recently taken black & white photos before. You could create a black & white alternative and someone could put it up for a vote to see which version is more appreciated here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 00:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info B&W version, as suggested by Ikan Kekek. --ElBute (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ElBute (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version. INeverCry 17:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this version, too, and I will change my vote on the color photo to oppose if it becomes clear this alternative can get enough support for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual B&W panorama. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Prefer this version. Good image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and seven. --Hubertl 14:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to break up the unanimity. Yes, the b&w version is better overall, but it is still oversharpened to me, perhaps to make up for using a wider aperture. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No seduction, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info I'm sorry. This is the first time I create an alternative and it is featured. I do not know what to do now. What is the alternative parameter? --ElBute (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Embalse de Puente Nuevo (alt1).jpg

File:KosmonautFestival PrinzPi-1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2016 at 10:43:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info all by Menschenmaterial -- Menschenmaterial (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Menschenmaterial (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - This isn't as striking as the last portrait you nominated, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC) - Neutral - Daniel's remark focused my mind a bit. This photo doesn't wow me; it's simply good, although I just found what might be a spot to the right of the man's scapula. FP isn't supposed to be for merely good pictures, unless there is something particularly valuable about them in some other way. I think there's some value to a clear closeup of a musician who's noted in Europe, so I'm not going to go all the way to opposing, but I guess I'm feeling neutral about the photo now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's sharp, but imho neither composition, nor light, nor expression, nor background is enough for FP. Maybe I oversee something, but for me it is only a solid QI. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. I can’t see anything special here, though the quality is good. --Kreuz schnabel 16:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tuxyso. INeverCry 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz-- Zcebeci (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, per everyone else except Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 01:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 46.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 13:25:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Aerial view of the "Owlman" aka "Astronaut" is the most enigmatic geoglyph of the Nazca Lines, which are located in the Nazca Desert in southern Peru. The geoglyphs of this UNESCO World Heritage Site (since 1994) are spread over a 80 km (50 mi) plateau between the towns of Nazca and Palpa and are, according to some studies, between 500 B.C. and 500 A.D. old. Some theories affirm that this 30 metres (98 ft) figure symbolizes an alien. All by me, Poc o² 13:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange to think that the people who made this would never have seen it (unless they got to take rides in the spaceships)... INeverCry 17:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your design on the sand of the beach of your holidays is a very well done fake : it really looks like Nazca Lines of Peru !--Jebulon (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 02:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 14:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aha! An alien's self-portrait! Proof that the humble primitive non-European peoples of this area could not have built something so sophisticated all by themselves! Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Illuminati~~ Aliens confirmed! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 01:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Potsdamer Platz, Berlin, 160606, ako (1).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2016 at 03:30:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Ansgar Koreng (Code) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Code recently uploaded a series of three pictures of Potsdamer Platz to Commons:Quality images candidates (all were promoted). This is my favorite of the series, and I think it's a fantastic photo. I hope you agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination, Ikan! --Code (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're welcome. I'm very pleased to nominate such an outstanding photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Support high quality blue hour shot -- Thennicke (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Neutral Significant (even visible in thumbnail) posterisation in the sky on the right half of the image -- Thennicke (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope you looked at larger sizes than the thumbnail. Where are you seeing it at full size? The only place where a really close inspection might see it, to my eyes, is right above the Bahnhof, but even there, if so, it's very subtle and probably a tradeoff that was necessary to have an exposure that, amazingly, got the buildings in focus and also focused the stars without trails! Larger sizes show a progression of changes in tone that is not apparent in the thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thennicke: Thank you for your comment, Thennicke. It's interesting that you noted some posterization. I've been working on this picture several hours and it nearly drove me crazy because I always saw a lot of posterization in the sky, regardless which settings in LR and PS I've chosen. Then I looked at the same picture on my notebook, my tablet and my phone and found out that no posterization was visible at all. I then asked Hubertl, Diliff and Colin for their opinions before uploading the pictures to Commons. I don't have their answers here right now but I remember that none of them noted a severe posterization. Diliff said a little amount of posterization was visible and told me to add some noise to the picture to avoid posterization caused by the JPG-compression. I followed that advice. I really don't know what else I should do. I believe that in the end the quality of the picture might differ depending on which screen you're using to look at it. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't explain that phenomenon otherwise. My skills in post processing aren't that good and I'll be happy if anybody else could give me a hint on how I could even more improve the picture. BTW: Do you see the same issue on the other two pictures of the series? And P.S.: Of course the risk of getting posterization is much higher in the thumbnail than on the larger version because the thumbnail is being compressed much more. --Code (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to judge the posterisation from a thumbnail, since the thumbnail has higher JPG compression and sharpening and is created by Imagemagick on the Mediawiki server. The thumbnail is just an indication of what the full size image looks like - it is not an exact replica of it. Also, the sky has a very subtle gradient and this does sometimes cause posterisation problems that are difficult to solve, but often posterisation does not actually exist in the image itself, it's introduced by monitors with low bit depth or by monitor profiles. There is a small amount of actual posterisation but I know from experience that it's very difficult to eliminate in deep blue skies where there is limited sensor information in that range. Canon sensors are sadly inferior in that regard. The best way to avoid it is to shoot HDR or bracketed exposures, and I understand that this is not an HDR image - it is a single exposure. Tone mapping isn't always the best solution though. A common recommendation is to 'expose to the right' (of the exposure histogram). This is because the sensor contains more usable information at the brighter end. However, exposing to the right (maximising the amount information contained at the overexposed end of the RAW file right up to the point where it begins to result in blown highlights) means the photo usually looks too bright, and it then has to be underexposed again in post. This has the effect of giving you lower overall image noise and a greater ability to dig into the shadow detail. I think this image may also have benefited from a second 'overexposed' image which Code could have used the sky from, and it probably would have contained less posterisation. He could have then darkened the sky to match the 'actual' sky visible in this image. It's messy and not always easy to do, but with limited dynamic range in a Canon sensor, it's sometimes necessary. Having said all this, I don't think the posterisation is that bad. It's there, but it's not enough to worry me. Diliff (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you see some posterization, depends on which monitor you are looking at. On my better one (Iiyama ProLite) it´s almost unvisible - it´s sligthly visible on the other, both are "just" FullHD. I´m interested how it looks on a 5K monitor, so I´ll ask Johann. To say, that it is visible even on the thumbnail, it´s completely wrong, it´s visible BECAUSE of the compression of the thumbnail. But David already explained it very profound. Also Uwe may be asked (Eizo). --Hubertl 09:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, no posterization. And yes, you have my Support, too --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for the bit about the thumbnail. What I'm seeing is significant in the full-sized image though, so it is probably just my monitor, as you've all mentioned. I don't have my desktop computer with me here so I'll stay as neutral for now, because it's impossible for me to judge with such a rubbish screen. It seems like an excellent image otherwise, of course, and I have no doubt you've done your best to reduce posterisation. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support − Meiræ 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 10:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support crisp & clean! Atsme 📞 14:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. For my personal taste the top crop of the sky is slightly too wide compared to the relatively small amount of street in the foreground. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 22:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another take on this symbol of the reunited Berlin. As good as the other two. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 01:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosa canina Neulengbach 20160611 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2016 at 10:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Rosaceae
Info Close-up of Dog-rose (Rosa canina). All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would question the depth of field because while the center of the flower is beautifully in focus, none of the petals are, but you describe this accurately as a closeup. So take this for whatever it's worth, but I would suggest cropping almost all the leaves from the photo and having the picture frame be only big enough to encompass the flower well (probably in a square frame). If you do that, I would probably support featuring the picture because the part that is in focus is a great closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support more DOF under natural conditions is almost impossible for a small subject like this, focus bracketing is not possible. therefore I support this nomination. --Hubertl 01:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely done! Atsme 📞 03:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love the DOF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is of excellent quality, but the light conditions seem somewhat harsh to me. So I feel no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 04:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too darky shades in the upper half region of the photo --Zcebeci (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support PLeasing composition offsets the inevitable DoF problems. Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good quality but the light (dark background, flower a bit shadowed) make it not enough outstanding Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Christian Ferrer (shadows) and also petals edges blurred, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 01:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valahnukur, Suðurnes, Islandia, 2014-08-13, DD 048.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2016 at 03:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Diego takes so many great photos that he could sometimes use some help in getting more of them considered for a feature. I really like this view, the texture of the water and the way the light hits it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for this nomination, Ikan! And thank you for asking for help. If somebody would like to look into potential FP candidates, you may find something here :) Poc o² 14:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those pages of potential FP candidates are amazing. Everyone would probably enjoy looking through them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 17:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice landscape. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and beautiful landscape. But dull light.--Jebulon (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - True, the light at the top of the picture is rather white, diffuse and a bit glary. If you look directly at a closeup of that section at full size, I can see where it could be disturbing. I think it's OK in the context of the whole picture and also worth it for what it does to the other 5/6 or so of the picture, but I understand and respect your opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ali Zifan 03:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but the light at the left top of the picture is relatively white --Zcebeci (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality, but I'm not a fan of the light direction Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 01:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitosis Stages.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2016 at 22:46:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Ali Zifan. It also passed under the W3C validator without any errors and warrnings. Ali Zifan 22:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 22:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support IPMAT! Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the filesize is big (1 MB), which is rare for a SVG... Still educational and high quality though. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cappadocia Chimneys - DWiW.jpg (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 19:53:45

Info Proposing replacement of (Original nomination) with

Delist and replace -- Pine^✉ 19:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Der Wolf im Wald and Benh to notify them of this proposal. --Pine^✉ 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Wolf im Wald 12:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Kruusamägi (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace INeverCry 19:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace because I think it's an improvement over DWIW's work (which was pretty good and inspired mine, but I had the advantage to start from RAW). - Benh (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace The concern I raised in my oppose during the original nomination has been sufficiently addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace And 10. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin please also promote the replacement image to FP. --Pine^✉ 16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klafferkessel vom Greifenberg.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 09:21:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Starkly beautiful, with great and very natural fading into the background. Highly informational, too, and of great reference value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was waiting already for this nomination! --Hubertl 10:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 22:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tachileik Myanmar Kayan-People-Woman-03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 10:48:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Woman of the Kayan people with decorative neck rings working at her loom in Tachileik, Myanmar.

all by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish the crop were just a hair to the left, to encompass all the necklaces, but that's nitpicking. I support mostly because the long-suffering expression of the woman touches me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Featurable scene, but lack of image quality (e.g. hands are blurred). --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, her hands seem to be moving just so slightly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good but I’d suggest a) to crop out the distracting pink piece of cloth on the lower left and b) check white balance (even the woodwork appears pinkish to me) --Kreuz schnabel 06:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done I applied left crop. Thanks for the suggestion; I left it initially to preserve the necklaces but it looks better now. Concerning the WB, I just raised a little bit temperature and reduced pink and magent a bit. In general, it were almost matter of taste as the white of the headgear already showed the correct colours. The inside light of her workshop was influenced by all the coloured clothing which filtered the light not very fortunate. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Hubertl 21:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support now --Kreuz schnabel 10:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Blurred hands are a plus for me; they make sure we don't think she was just sitting there holding the loom. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Okshornan from Tungeneset, 2015 September - 3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 07:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is really fantastic, another great photo by Ximonic! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reflections… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 14:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 21:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alice Paul (1915) by Harris & Ewing.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 22:20:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Harris & Ewing - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm by no means amazed with this photo, but you did a good restoration with what you had to work with, and it's certainly historically important. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just looked at the photo again. It bugs me at full size, but I think that must be a good deal bigger than it actually was. At full-page size, it's quite good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. God, I love that expression on her face ... I know they had to sit still for a while back then, but, even so, she looks like the photographer can't leave soon enough for her. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Choir stall Roskilde domkirke Denmark.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 19:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Part of a 14th century gothic choir stall in the cathedral of Roskilde, Denmark, featuring the Resurrection of Christ. I like the naive details of this relief, one can see the marks of the tools of the sculptor, and the structure of the wood. The light was luckily interesting for an inside picture without tripod.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Support a feature and thought of nominating this myself, but I was and am afraid that some people may judge the light as too harsh. I consider the light strong, but it isn't glary, and I really like the relief. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Please notice that this is the northern part of the choir, illuminated by the light from south and I was lucky with the light through the transparent windows (no colored glasses). There is no overexposition (controled with histogram). Enjoy the spider webs.--Jebulon (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 06:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I see a minor pincussion distortion.--Uoaei1 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support and comment. Could you show me where, with a note on the picture ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Desierto de Siloli, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 09-14 PAN.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2016 at 16:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the Siloli Desert, one of the driest in the world, Potosi Department, southwestern Bolivia. The wind erosion has caused over the centuries these bizarre rock formations. All by me, Poc o² 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 20:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's very beautiful. You were able to take a photo with some very bright areas, without anything being blown out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ali Zifan 21:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^(talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting, too good for an opposing vote. But imho the light is harsh and I cannot see a clear composition. Looking at thumbnail size on the photo the uninformative foreground dominates and the more interesting farer parts (the rocks, the mountains at the right) become less important. From a photographic point of view a photo (with narrower angle of view) in the early morning or late evening with softer sunlight could be better, from an encyclopedic view a farer angle of view is preferred - a difficult case :) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso: I cannot change the light but I've uploaded a new version where I've crop the bottom significantly and the top a bit. Thanks for the feedback. Poc o² 16:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poco_a_poco, I made a derivate work to stress what I mean with clearer composition:

Thanks for the new version, Tuxyso, I agree, it is a nice picture with better lighting as you cropped the area with more shadows. That's also FP-worthy to me, but not what I was looking for. I was trying to teletransport the viewer to this place with help of a very wide panorama. Poc o² 20:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wouldn't need a lot of editing to make a Wikivoyage banner. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the rocks unsharp, and a sharpening line is visible. Please see note.--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon: New version with that frindge reworked Poc o² 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you drop a line and give some feedback? Poc o² 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_09-14_PAN.JPG

File:Sunflower and bumble bee in Mexico.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 05:28:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/add_the_category_here
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel a little ungenerous opposing: This is by no means a bad photo at all; however, sunflowers are very large flowers and bumblebees aren't super-tiny, and the problem is that at most, only the very center of the flower is truly sharp at full size. I'm also not totally sold on the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 06:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tijuca Mountains with Corcovado, the Highest, and Rio de Janeiro City Below.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 11:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created and uploaded by Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Great motif, but not an awe-inspiring photo of it. The crops feel haphazard to me and the light isn't extraordinary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 22:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikanm, featurable view not featurably done. Why f/6.7? Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc national de Jebel Zaghouan 30.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 08:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't care for the two big blurred flowers in the foreground. INeverCry 18:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The unsharp flower in the foreground is imho tot dominant here with regard to size and position. If you look on the photo it is the first thing you realize. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso --Zcebeci (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everybody. But I think you're getting closer to the quality we look for at Featured Picture Candidates. Your idea was terrific, and if it weren't for the unsharp flowers, it might have been a successful nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I like this so much and would have loved to !vote support, but that flower in the foreground needs to be in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Girolamo dei Croati (Roma) - Ceiling.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 07:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course I wasn't there, so I don't know how it looked, but the middle feels too glary. If you feel OK about decreasing the brightness a bit, I'll look again. I wouldn't want the brightness decreased too much because that's supposed to be a bright light, of course, and I don't want the surrounding frescoes to get too dark, but I also notice some glare on the gold at the top of the picture frame, so I do think some decrease in brightness is warranted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rammu saare vaade.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2016 at 20:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment View in North-Estonian coast in October. The floating spaceship is Keri island.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. This is an example of a photo that is unsharp by degrees for artistic reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this image is lacking sharpness + high degree of noise --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Falbinoser --Zcebeci (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin and imho no special light. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually like this as a composition, when I wouldn't have expected to, but Martin is right. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough outstanding light or composition, also not very sharp Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I look at it, I have to agree, that the light conditions were not very good (sun was already low on horizon and sky was flooded with dense soup of gray clouds). That has left its mark on the foreground. What got me mesmerized was the look of Keri island (situated ca 18 km away), that seems to hover above the sea. I took this image on a brief visit to Rammu island and I have actually no idea how might this view look like during other months of the year or with other light conditions. So is it a rare capture of an optical illusion or a snapshot far from what could be achieved -- I have no clue. But I wanted to see, what would the feedback be. :) Kruusamägi (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Martin. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby Banana Plant.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 09:04:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/add_the_category_here
Info created by Nepali keto62 - uploaded by Nepali keto62 - nominated by Nepali keto62 -- NepaliKeto62 ^{Talk to me} 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NepaliKeto62 ^{Talk to me} 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but that's not special in any way and not even sharp at full size. I wasn't surprised when I checked and saw that you took that picture with a cell phone. Cell phone pictures have no chance of being among the most outstanding on the site and also routinely fail when nominated at Quality Image Candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it might be possible to get a cellphone shot featured, but it would have to be really very special as for composition or lighting to make up for the unavoidable quality drawbacks. QI, on the other hand, is virtually impossible, that’s right. --Kreuz schnabel 06:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. The leaves are cropped out, and this plant is not identified. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, for above --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 14:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 22:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is the worst quality I’ve seen here for months. Severe loss of detail, pixelated (obviously upscaled). Far from QI. I really don’t see what’s supposed to be special here. --Kreuz schnabel 06:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of everything posted above. - Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue eglise Argol.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2016 at 21:06:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Sculptures
Info created by Triton - uploaded by Triton - nominated by Triton -- Triton (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Triton (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the subject itself is not sharp. Maybe QI but not FP for me.--Hubertl 21:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hubert. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hubert. INeverCry 03:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a pity. A great picture otherwise. --Code (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Great composition, but per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination seems clear that it won't pass...in my defence it was very dark in the church and I had no tripod...Next one soon! Triton (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiang mai stone snake.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 13:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: sculpture
Info created by Triton - uploaded by Triton - nominated by Triton (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Triton (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but part of the head is cut off. Also: distractive background and unsharpness of the main subject. --Cayambe (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf found that the unsharpness is the artistic side of the picture ;) Triton (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I now understand your intention. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Crop, background, DOF --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DOF? Triton (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DOF = depth of field

Oppose Per others. INeverCry 18:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently the background blur doesn't convince here. Don't worry, I still have some other pictures up my sleeve! (by the way, I'm taking any comments about them... if somebody has a little bit of time to help me sort them out :) )Triton (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationTriton (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama vom Aussichtsturm Sandberg, Platt (Gemeinde Zellerndorf), Weinviertel 6186.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 09:32:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Panorama of the northern "Weinviertel", seen from the Observation tower, Platt, municipality Zellerndorf, Lower Austria (Weinviertel). Close to the border of Czech Republic, south Moravia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Projekt Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016
Support -- Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Less enthusiastic Support than I had hoped. I think this picture deserves a feature because it's super-informative, but the composition is questionable, as a large part of it is hazy. By no means do I think this is one of the best panoramas on the site, but the clear notations and clickable pictures probably make it one of the more informative ones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan Landscape by itself is not striking, but it is recorded in a striking level of detail. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VI probably, but the composition, especially the right foreground, looks haphazard. INeverCry 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose - neither the composition nor the image quality (e.g. leaning buildings) are convincing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for voting. --Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 21:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow hose.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 08:31:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by W.carter - uploaded by W.carter - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 08:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- w.carter-Talk 08:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good photo but doesn't wow me at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the way, for whatever it's worth, I consider this a stronger FP candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought it was too wacky, but thanks, I can give it a try. :) w.carter-Talk 10:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't guarantee what others will think, but it certainly is interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan Kekek Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 10:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Well-done, but while visually interesting it's a little busy, and thus to me not striking enough to be sufficiently wowing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. INeverCry 18:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination No worries people, thanks for helpful comments, I learn a lot from them. No need to drag this out though. Still a bit of a newbie in this section of the Commons. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 19:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sayornis phoebe, Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin May 2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2016 at 13:10:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by John Benson - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice photo with regard to composition and quality. But focus is not on the bird's eye - probably f11 had made life easier - you had enough buffer with ISO 100 :) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The top of the head is a bit unsharp, but I'm OK with the focus not being on the eye because the entire rest of the bird is sharp, including the tail feathers. I usually see fuzzy tail feathers and miss seeing them clearly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such lovely colors. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Liteyny Bridge Panorama.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 11:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Panorama of the Liteyny Bridge across the Neva river in Saint Petersburg
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but this picture is mostly lots and lots of water and doesn't wow me. I've been liking some of your views of buildings abutting a canal a lot more than this, and I've been thinking that some of them are probably featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: thank you, I do need my own Wow-Nemesis. Wicked Omen of Mine. Shall I withdraw the nomination right now? --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - First of all, if you're being the least bit serious, I hope you get over your weird reaction to me (note that I did support your last nomination in the end, by the way). Second, I would recommend that you wait for feedback from more people before making any decision, but it's not for me to say. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Ikan Kekek: sorry for my behaviour. Just difficult and nervous days. --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's OK. I can relate to that. But I just want to say that you are a very good photographer and I look forward to other nominations of your photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 18:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan; it's just too flat to be interesting in an image this large. QI for sure though. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all. This nomination was my mistake, so I I withdraw my nomination --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:AIDluna - Caribbean Sunset.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2016 at 17:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info And just another freakin' sunset, I know. I'd like to give this one a shot though. It was taken on board AIDAluna cruising the carribbean. As the sun was partly covered by thick clouds, the mood is very dark, somewhat nightish, creating an interesting and attractive color gradient from dark red to blue. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 22:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - This is surely a good picture, but it doesn't wow me; to me, it's just a nice, high-quality picture of a sunset with a lot of water and one side of a ship. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. INeverCry 00:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might have had wow, but not with that large posterized blob over the sun. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm, not on my screen... well, cf. this ongoing discussion. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours, the composition and the overall mood. --Code (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much dark water and dark undefined clouds (+ the sun-blob), could maybe have been better if it had been taken about 8 minutes earlier. w.carter-Talk 22:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaade Meenikunno rabale Liipsaare vaatetornist.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2016 at 11:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Külli Kolina - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - On the whole, it would just be a nice though unremarkable picture of forest, except for the misty copse in the background, which is special and makes this a FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 14:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The trees "floating" in the "mist-lake" does it. w.carter-Talk 22:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Лектор.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 21:00:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Dan5265 - uploaded by Dan5265 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is he very famous? If so, I would support. If not, I'd judge this as merely a good photo but not compelling enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very well-known personality. Regular lecturer at the university. JukoFF (talk)
Oppose The facial expression of the lecturer looks tired and abstracted. If he was famous, this would likely illustrate a bio article on ru.wiki at least. Even then, it doesn't wow me. INeverCry 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending an answer to the question of the subject's notability. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oasis de Huacachina, Ica, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 19-22 PAN.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 20:59:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Huacachina oasis, Ica Region, Peru. The location has a population of 115 and is built around a natural lake in the desert and is a popular destination for sandboarding and buggy riding. Note: there is already one FP of this site, but I believe that the composition is different enough to give it a try with this one. All by me, Poc o² 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photo, but I think there is a small flaw (cloning problem perhaps). It seems two people have been cloned twice. I added an annotation. Any way of rectifying it? Nikhil (talk)
Support great but per Nikhil --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photo, but there are two stacking errors, see notes (As usual, one overlooks the faults in own pictures but notices them in others on the first sight ;-) ). Should be fixable. --Llez (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llez, Daniel: I've uploaded a new version addressing those stitching issues Poc o² 18:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Poco, the right one is OK (well done!), but there is still the second (the left). It is located where the path, on which walk two people, reaches the upper rim of the dune. Also this two ( or three?) people are a bit strange, in front of the left person is seemingly a "half person". I suggest to remove out these people completely --Llez (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Llez Actually I did fix an stitching error in that area in the previous version but not yours :( I got it, please, check this version. Poc o² 19:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, you got it --Llez (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending resolution of the stacking errors. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hubertl 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost identical is already featured. --Ivar (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: As I stated in the introductory note above not in my eyes, 40 MPx vs 90 MPx, different essential elements in the composition and different crop/ratio. I also believe that picture is more striking that the other one Poc o² 16:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I didn't see the note. Imho the first version should be delisted ja replaced. --Ivar (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Oasis de Huacachina, Ica, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 19-22 PAN.JPG

What alternative, George? Only one photo was being considered, and no photo was nominated for replacement, though one person informally suggested it should be replaced. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I started this additional FPC I was never intending to replace the former FP. As I already stated, I consider both different pictures from different points of view Poc o² 11:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Automatic metro operation Control Driver Panel of Jabacuara Metro Station, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 16:27:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but amazing. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This one doesn't work for me. The control panel is indeed interesting, and I'm fine with the phones, the books and so on. What spoils it for me is the chair, which is not an interesting subject and takes away too much of my attention. It's also unsharp. My suggestion, for what it's worth, is if you have a chance to take a photo of this motif again, move the chair out of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally impossible to enter a Metro control area of São Paulo, is not allowed, You needed a special permit to take a picture from the outside through the glass. The cabin is very small control and move the chair is out manual procedures. --The Photographer (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you wouldn't be able to move the chair out of the picture frame. The picture is certainly interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, The chair is on one side, is not covering a large area of the control panel, besides being an important element use like others. --The Photographer (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 18:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Put all chair or put it out. Pic is interesting. --Mile (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support I could say that there's too much in this picture. But ... the flatness of the light on such retro-looking equipment, and the consistent level of detail, just combine the right way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too retro colors like light orange, this panel rememberme the panel os sci fi spacecraft control panel of 60s movies --The Photographer (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the chair, it balances the pic, without it there would be too much orange. It also adds a bit of life to the scene, like someone just up and left. What I do mind is that it's unsharp, the kind of "double-tap" you get when you jerk the camera as you press the shutter in bad light. Or is it the glass mentioned above that plays reflection tricks with the photographer? There are also CA in some places (phone cord, clock, tags, reflections in the chrome on the chair). w.carter-Talk 22:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbara McClintock (1902-1992) shown in her laboratory in 1947.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2016 at 21:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Smithsonian Institution/Science Service - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support mostly for historic significance, but the look of concentration on her face while she carefully conducts her work is also striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good environmental portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Castildetierra - Summer morning.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2016 at 05:56:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Ant°AM - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this a really striking picture, with the combination of the weird geology and swirling clouds. This rock formation is called a hoodoo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please remove dust spots --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't see the dust spots, but Ant°AM, if you can see them, please remove them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't see any dust spot in the picture anymore... There used to be in the first version, but I removed them in the current version. -- Ant°AM (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all right! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 01:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grass snake (Natrix natrix) at the sea shore.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2016 at 19:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family:Colubridae(Colubrids)
Info created by Aleksandr Abrosimov with some my corrections, rotation to left, + space on left and cut on right and much of banding removed. -- Mile (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a definite improvement. I'm still not feeling a wow, but let's see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 20:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only way, if ever, to rescue this picture is redevelopment, of course without this terrible digital zooming. Sorry --A.Savin 00:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helicigona lapicida andorrica 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2016 at 05:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created and uploaded by H. Zell (Llez) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this a beautiful shell, and I'm also impressed with the very clear closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 05:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ikan for the nomination --Llez (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My pleasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 01:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Municipal Market of São Paulo city.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 16:26:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wilfredo's style. Nice colors and textures too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's an absolute riot of colors and shapes. I like it because it gives my eyes a lot to move around, but I think some people will see that as a negative ("too much going on") and vote against it for that reason. We shall see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the image, but consider it somewhat small. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~{neutral}~~ Per Kruusamägi. Looks downsampled because unsharp at full size. But very colorful and nice subject.--Jebulon (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been critic too of this bad practice and it's not downsampled and you will find the RAW file in the description. My camera has 10 years old thanks to a WMF global locked user, however, if I was the owner of a D800 I never would downsampled an image. A good camera and good lenses create an image with great detail, in my case, I always try to squeeze the most of what my camera and lenses can give. I always upload RAW images after an image is FP, however, bothers me such distrust, especially when I have been the main downsize critic --The Photographer (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "looks". Of course I trust you, sorry if I hurt.--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very colorful and beautiful. Ali Zifan 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ali. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small --Mile (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ali --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has its limitations, but how can we not? Would make a great jigsaw puzzlw. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For colors.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it's a bit on the small side, but it's the kind of juicy pic that makes you want to write an article about fruit markets just to be able to use this as main pic. w.carter-Talk 22:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Oktoberfest 2015 - Impression 5.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 14:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Impression of Munich's Oktoberfest 2015 - detail of amusement ride "Enterprise". All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 15:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wasn't wowed at first, but looking at the upside-down people and workings of the ferris wheel (or whatever) at full size is really cool, and this picture is really creative with an interesting angle on the ride and the plane with its contrail above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me there is too much sky in the image, and I am not a fan of the lighting either. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a fan but for me isn't a problem if the pic is good...however like the aeroplane --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Crop out that jet and I think what you were looking for might be more obvioua. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- well, actually I like plane + contrail as they create some degree of spatial depth. They also add another compositional element that is, just as the ride itself, representative for concepts such as "rapid movement" and "sky". --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was to oppose, but per Ikan and Livio.--Jebulon (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Paris Sainte Chapelle East View 02.JPG, featured edit

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

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
Info East view of Sainte Chapelle with gate at the Cour de Mai of the Palais de Justice in Paris, France. All by -- Uoaei1 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imagine: I work here (in the same building ensemble). Good catch.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Lucky you, Jebulon! That's where I work... ;-)

Support I like the clashing diagonals. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 01:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phare et Abbaye de Saint-Mathieu de nuit.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 00:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/add_the_category_here
Info created by murzabov - uploaded by murzabov - nominated by [[User:{{subst:murzabov}}|]] -- Murzabov (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Murzabov (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for a couple of reasons and quality issues, sorry. Most importantly: converging lines need to be corrected --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Falbisoner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin Falbisoner. A pity because the motif itself is nice and I can imagine what the photographer saw when he took the picture. --Code (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin and Code. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 02:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soignies - Garde Impériale 2.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2016 at 14:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The light is a bit dull. But how often do you get a chance to take such a great photo of a historical military band come (back) to life? I simply can't but support a feature! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Approved by Jean Nicolas Sénot (wp article by your servant). --Jebulon (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish Jean-Pol GRANDMONT be back in "Commons". He is a really good belgian photographer, but disapeared suddenly from our pages...--Jebulon (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 22:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Mile (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Mile, why do you oppose? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a civilian in military shot. Tight bottom crop, bad background, they neither seem like "unit"...more like fellas from nearby pub. --Mile (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support They do look like a bunch of cosplaying guys from the local pub... because that's what they are. That's what I like about this picture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Historical Comment about an anachronism: 3 of the drums are decorated with the colors of the belgian flag (black-yellow-red), which did not exist at the time of Napoleon...--Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Artistical Comment, the youg boy at right remembers me this one.--Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Uniformological Comment, the uniforms of the Tambours du 1er Régiment des Grenadiers à pied de la Garde Impériale were far much more decorated with gold ribbons, and gold in the epaulettes ! See here.--Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the soft light, when I first saw it I thought it was a painting! w.carter-Talk 22:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but not outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Børsen dragon spire roofs Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 16:54:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Dragon spire" and roofs of the Børsen (former Stock Exchange), circa 1630, Netherlands Renaissance style, Copenhagen, Denmark. Never seen such a strange spire. I hope you will like the composition-- Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes, Ilike it. And I have been up there see File:Abstract view from Børsen.jpg. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you change the crop? It is too tight now, the image is dominated by much sky in the middle. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry no, I like this composition, that's one of the reasons of this nomination. And the sky is not so bad, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I almost started licking the spire . Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should enjoy a nice saturnism crisis, due to the lead.--Jebulon (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it looks like an ice-cream cone. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ali Zifan 01:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cathedral (Parma) - Assumption by Correggio.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 10:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Underexposed --The Photographer (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, the image is significantly underexposed - but this can be easily fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support better and imo sufficient --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's actually a very good painting, however, ISO 400 and f/9 is not a good choise, too much jpeg artifacts, Nikon D5200 can give more size resolution. Please ask the tripod permition and take it in raw using almost 3 expositions +5,0,-5 --The Photographer (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apart that was taken in raw ... really I should use a tripod? and really I should ask for a permit? thank you. Aside from the obvious they gave me a few seconds and I had to prepare quickly. I do not understand why comment and then oppose ... is faster to do everything at once --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well ask for is ever fine, maybe you are overprocessing the RAW --The Photographer (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me not...probably yes for you--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is not as clear as usual for you. The side panels don't seem of sufficient quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support @The Photographer: Yes, paintings by Antonio Allegri da Correggio are generally noted as "very good"...... Otherwise, I disagree with opposers. The artificial light makes this ceiling special enough in light and composition.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not about the light, but maybe (Because I can't see the RAW file) about a combination of hight noise, too DoF and overprocessing resulting in jpeg artifacts and details problems, however, it's only MHO --The Photographer (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't address light or composition in my remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's that black dot in the middle? Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How you can see in this other version, it's a painting inperfection --The Photographer (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. IMO, it is a small hole for a cable and a chandelier.--Jebulon (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd probably remove the dot Daniel points out, but then I'm far from a purist. INeverCry 03:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For Daniel Case and INeverCry:"The interior of the dome may also be illuminated by a spot in the top hole that can be opened, or closed by skylight, or surmounted by a lantern, crowning element of similarity small round temple in gender windowed". Thanks. For The Photographer But what you're making? Imperfection? but if there is also the other photos ... strange this your way to do. Very strange. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to explain with "it's a painting inperfection" It's about the painting not your photo --The Photographer (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support − Meiræ 08:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that I know the black dot is there IRL. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and very good for me. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Galite-Galiton 110.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 14:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak/moderate Support - This picture is beautiful, especially the shine and texture of the water. The reason for the weakness of my support is that I don't like the nearest rocks being unfocused at full size. I think you could probably improve the composition by cropping them out, but that's to your discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Info dear Ikan Kekek I corped it thank you for the advice --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I think that's an improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 07:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not impressed by the level of detail - the water looks artificial. --A.Savin 11:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Savin + this just doesn't have much wow factor for me overall. INeverCry 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:NSG Rotwildpark Stuttgart 2015 01 Waldweg Neuer See.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 15:47:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Forest near Neuer See in the natural reserve Rotwildpark, Stuttgart, Germany. All by me. — Julian H.^✈ 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems to me like the kind of photo that routinely gets denied a feature, but maybe people are liking it better than other similar motifs because of the leaves on the paths. I'm not super-wowed by this, but I like pretty much everything about it - the light, the composition, the colors, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting idea, per Ikan, but the leaves in the background look kind of waxy. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing special, but I like it. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 01:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roadkill on Route 170 Okatie Hwy by the Chechessee River, SC, USA, jjron 09.04.2012.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 08:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on 2 Encyclopedias.created by jjron - uploaded by jjron - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - In what possible way is that featurable? A sad or disgusting motif can be featurable, but the composition has to be really special. Can you please explain why you think this is one of the most outstanding photos on the site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible, for above --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek above. --Cayambe (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do understand the opposing votes but imo this is a very good illustration of a truly ugly scene --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 22:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Martin Falbisoner it’s a valuable illustration, however, it’s not outstanding by photographic means. The composition is not balanced. Doesn’t wow me. --Kreuz schnabel 23:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is much better than most of the other images in Category:Roadkill, as it includes the road and some vehicles. From the wikipedian POV, this makes it more valuable. From the photographic POV, it's more than just a documentary mugshot-like picture. Hence, I totally agree with the featured status at the 2 Wikipedias. But for Commons FPC, it's not quite WOW-y enough imho (some external examples of what I'd consider good candidates in this "genre": [1], [2]). --El Grafo (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and EG above. Perhaps a VI in time, but not featurable technically. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Utterly disgusting. Like it. − Meiræ 08:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 12:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. One of our best pictures in its category. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Baluschek - Arbeiterstadt (1920).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2016 at 02:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media #Landscape or #Other
Info created by Hans Baluschek - uploaded and nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Working class. Good one. --Mile (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 07:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 01:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine reproduction. --Pugilist (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Achterwasser Usedom Dewichow Nacht 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2016 at 11:58:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc -- Dirtsc (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a QI I promoted. Daniel Case (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calm, nice colors. INeverCry 03:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 12:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow + some oversharpening (?) Kruusamägi (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a FP for me. Partly too dark and lacks sharpness. --Milseburg (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I've been undecided, and that's why I didn't vote on this photo until now. I think that it misses the point to say that the photo lacks sharpness - it clearly isn't meant to be sharp, so that's a mere observation. And unsharpness can be good for artistic reasons, such as in the wonderful, colorful mountain dawn pictures we've loved so much. The reason I'm voting against this picture now isn't because of a general disagreement with unsharpness, but because it's so unsharp that I can't identify what I'm looking at on the left side, and though the composition is pretty, I don't find it outstanding. If I were simply judging whether this was a good photo I enjoyed looking at at full-page size, I would support, but for a Featured Picture, it falls a bit short to my eyes and mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice dreamy pic for an illustration of some kind, but not that extraordinary or FP for me. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 22:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cardinalis cardinalis (male), Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin July 2016 (crop).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 10:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by John Benson - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very pity, but the image is blurred. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but this is not close to the really high standard of featured bird pictures, in which you can clearly see almost every feather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. INeverCry 18:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himalayan yaks in the Everest region.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2016 at 09:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Agnes Kwong - uploaded by Agnes Kwong - nominated by Nepali keto62 -- NepaliKeto62 ^{Talk to me} 09:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NepaliKeto62 ^{Talk to me} 09:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - This is a lovely and extremely striking image, but I'm bothered by the sky being a bit subtly but noticeably pixellated at full size, and why does there seem to be no information about what camera was used to take the photo? Also, it's a rather small file for a landscape Featured Picture candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 10:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small, with flaws at upper left, please see note.--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. I'd like this more if the peak at left had some sky above it, even just a little. INeverCry 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I love the composition and the detail in the foreground is stunning. But ... in addition to the weirdness at upper left pointed out so ably by Jebulon, there's the blown areas of the sky and clouds, demonstrating why a GND filter should have been used if we wanted to make this an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Striking image IMO--Biplab Anand (Talk) 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Lou Williams (Gottlieb 09231).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 12:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by William P. Gottlieb - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Barrage du Salagou cf02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 13:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this. There's an interesting kind of rhyme between the shapes of the clouds and the concrete part of the dam. I also like the clouds per se. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Hot dam! A little unsharp in the background, but with that lovely accident of the clouds Ikan points out topping off an already effective and unusual angle, I'll easily forgive that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition well done! --Milseburg (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Barrage du Salagou cf04.jpg, featured edit

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we yet have an FP with a landscape built around a dam. And oh, the detail here ... gives me ideas for what I could do with similar scenes near me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 7! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Ivar (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Ojo de San Pedro, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 30.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 16:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Location known as Ojo de San Pedro, El Loa Province, Antofagasta Region, northern Chile, close to the Bolivian border. The location, dried now, used to be a circular lake (therefore called "Ojo", to English "Eye"). The volcano in the background is San Pedro, a 6,145 metres (20,161 ft) stratovolcano. Poc o² 16:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You might be able to improve the composition further by cropping a bit to the right of the left margin, so as to eliminate the partial view of the large rock, but in any case, I definitely consider this featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: New version uploaded with that rock cropped. I agree it looks better, thanks! Poc o² 11:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes. The complementary diagonals seem clearer to me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 18:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Love the colors ... it's like an almost-abstract painting. And I really want to walk into it and explore it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 22:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of those Japanese high-speed trains ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mas Que Nada. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Benny Trapp Eirenis modestus Samos.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2016 at 05:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created and uploaded by Benny Trapp - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Good capture, but there's too much unsharpness in this picture for my taste, and my eye doesn't feel this to be a really good composition that's easy and pleasant to move around. I don't think it's fixable from my point of view, but I suspect that others will like it much more than I do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Since the head is out of focus and the DoF is too shallow IMHO, I’d have opposed to QI as well. Nice idea but not a lucky shot. --Kreuz schnabel 09:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination then ok... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-07-06-Rathaus Graz Turmblick-RR2 0275.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 21:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Castle mountain Graz, View from the spire of the town hall - all by --Ralf Roleček 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite pretty. If there's a way to decrease the noise in the sky a bit more without damaging the rest of the picture, that would improve it further. The noise isn't too bad, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky a bt denoised. --Ralf Roleček 22:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a very good improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deutsch: Kippt ein wenig nach rechts, sieht man ganz gut an den Gebäuden links unten. Ansonsten gut. English: Leaning slightly to the right. Otherwise good. --Code (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ja, der Ralf, der kann`s. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Feixina Park Torrent de Sa Riera Bastiò de Sant Pere Palma de Mallorca.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 10:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition at full-page size and really enjoyable to explore at full size. You might want to check your descriptions, though. I'm seeing English descriptions both where it says "English" and "Deutsch". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heavenly. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 23:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Water reflexions of bridges are an eye-catcher anytime. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Osh 03-2016 img28 view from Sulayman Mountain.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 11:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI and possibly VI, very nice detail that you can get lost in, but for me not sufficiently wowing. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compostion convinces me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 18:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, the composition is good, but I don't find this picture outstanding. Pretty much all the buildings except for the minaret and the broader building in the middle distance to the left look pretty much the same to this viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Arion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victoria Memorial from within Buckingham Palace.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 12:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
Info created by Sergeant Rupert Frere (Royal Logistic Corps) - uploaded by Firebrace - nominated by Firebrace -- Firebrace (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Firebrace (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good color, nice detail and interesting composition. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This does not work for me, as the crowd is seen from the back. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
stupid comment Actually, this shows a kind of Brexit, in some way, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As it was taken from inside Buckingham Palace, I guess it is a rare enough picture. Horseriders are not pinsharp, but the monument is. It is a FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wilder Kaiser, Tirol, Panorama, 160624, ako.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 07:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Kaiser Mountains in Tyrol, Austria. On the lower left you can see the town of Ellmau. All by me. -- Code (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. I see what might be a dust spot in the sky, almost directly in line with the truck. Or is it a bird, like the other "spots" I see? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you Ikan. Whatever it was, I cloned it out. --Code (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support wonderful colors and great composition! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Natural colors and verry good sharpness considering the high resolution. So verry good quality. But: The cabel on the rigt side down is disturbing to me. A bit emty sky at the top is dispensable, and finaly some informativ annotations are disirable. --Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greetings from Austria --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 14:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Prachtig uitlopend blad van een esdoorn (Acer). Locatie, Locatie, De Famberhorst 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 15:36:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Aceraceae.
Info Beautifully emerging leaves of maple (Acer). Location, The Famberhorst in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp detail against perfect bokeh. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hubertl 09:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Самка песца со спутниковым предатчиком.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2016 at 20:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info An arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) female, tagged with a satelite transmitter to study its' winter roaming on Kolguyev Island. Сreated by Hobboto4ek - uploaded by Hobboto4ek - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the scientific apparatus ruins this for me. INeverCry 23:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the scientific apparatus add something to the picture for me ;) Triton (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the scientific apparatus—I think it's good for the picture—but it should be in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Daniel. Too shallow a depth of field for me. Even most of the fox's head is blurry. Too bad, because the animal is cute. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erythrogonys cinctus - Chiltern.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2016 at 13:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes #Family : Charadriidae (Plovers)
Info created and uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works because of its small size. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Genuine. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moscow Rumyantsevo Metro station 04-2016.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2016 at 14:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info All by --A.Savin 14:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors --The Photographer (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, in many ways.--Jebulon (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! w.carter-Talk 16:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice :) --Laitche (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: yes I see you find it nice, you supported two times! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 18:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 18:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment though an incoming train would be another interesting element --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 19:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is great, and I was planning to nominate it if you didn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support gut gesehen, gut gemacht, geht nicht besser. --Ralf Roleček 23:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Отлично! I love the Mondrian look on the walls ... I'm trying to remember, what Russian painter did stuff like that too? Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, Alexander. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Museo Soumaya, Ciudad de México, México, 2015-07-18, DD 12.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2016 at 07:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I like the curvy structure, but the light is somewhat dull and the building to the left is unfocused. However, I can see how that could be an artistic choice and it doesn't bother me except at full size. So that leaves the light, and so, the structure is interesting enough for a feature. That said, I would love to see what it looks like under warmer light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Good composition and a good FPC, but technical problems. There are JPEG artifacts. --XRay ^talk 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Sorry, problem of my browser. Only minor CAs. --XRay ^talk 16:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XRay: can you please add a note with those minor CAs? Poc o² 18:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not using my computer. Please have a look to the left part of the building near the top. It's really a minor.--XRay ^talk 18:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, great, thank you Kruusamägi for this nomination. It's, indeed a nice building :) Poc o² 18:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also really like to tones. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting architecture of course, but the light doesn't do it for me. INeverCry 18:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstraction. Was this taken before the Wikimania reception there? Good times, good times ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm very sorry to oppose but the light is too dull. The subject itself is certainly featurable and the quality of the picture is very high but the light situation is not FP-worthy in my eyes. --Code (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the lighting which creates a cold and clean atmosphere. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tomada da cidade de São Salvador século XVIII (panorâmico).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 11:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Landscape
Info created by Unknown author - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 11:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 11:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The version with black background is better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the uncropped version as well. INeverCry 19:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de Gniezno, Gniezno, Polonia, 2014-09-17, DD 19-21 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2016 at 20:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Round view of the interior of the Royal Gniezno Cathedral, located in the historical city of Gniezno, old capital of Poland (before Kraków and Warsaw) located in the Greater Poland Voivodeship. The cathedral served as the coronation place for several Polish monarchs and as the seat of Polish church officials continuously for nearly 1000 years. Throughout its long and tragic history, the building stayed mostly intact making it one of the oldest and most precious sacral monuments in Poland. The religious temple dates back to the end of the ninth century, when an oratory was built in the shape of a rectangular nave. At the end of the tenth century Duke Mieszko I of Poland built a new temple on a cruciform plan and remodeled the existing nave oratory. Prince Bolesław I the Brave, later the first king of Poland, rebuilt the temple according to the plan of a rectangle, elevating it later to the rank of a Cathedral. All by me, Poc o² 20:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No words. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Splendid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support splendid indeed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the color and the form ... almost modernistic. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photograph. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Galite-Galiton 106.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 06:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I like the light and landforms on the island, and I moderately like the sky, but I think you could probably improve the composition by cropping out a lot of the water - maybe close to half of it, especially the foreground that's less sharp. You might want to play around with different crops and see which one looks best to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ Ikan Kekek I resized it to 16:9 --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm really sorry to do this, but now that the island is in clearer view, it's obviously unsharp, so I feel I have to Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great motif, but especialy the foreground lacks sharpness and the horizon tilts. --Milseburg (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment dear --Milseburg I added more sharpness have a look --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great view but unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 23:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Talv Väike-Taevaskojas.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2016 at 21:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Külli Kolina - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's great. I wonder how it would look in black & white. As it has a lot of white and isn't very colorful, it might look even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. No black & white please, since that would eliminate those few glints of golden sunlight coming through as well as all those different nuances of white that are in the pic. But it might just be us "northerners" who appreciate all the different colors of snow. ;) w.carter-Talk 22:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm also a Northerner, from New York City.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(NYC is south for us Swedes. :D) w.carter-Talk 07:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And even here, some of us appreciate the different shades of snow, too

. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support great colors. --Ralf Roleček 23:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 00:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine tones. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! although highlights appear blown --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support That`s a nice one. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ethel Reed (ca. 1895) by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 23:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The black-on-black background is regrettable, but nevertheless, this is a good picture and she has quite a piercing facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a bug - it's a feature! And the feature's called "low key photography" --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm certainly aware it's an artistic choice, but I still regret it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse examples; this one, what things are is quite clear; you get much more obscured photos, especially if the skin tones aren't white, and the photographer still shoots them the same way. For example, while I think it's still a good image, File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg would have definitely benefited from a lighter background to bring out the face. However, this was very much a photographic movement around this time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that was in style. It doesn't ruin this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just find it fun to discuss. =) By the way if you like her expression here, check out this one - and note her hand gesture. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious and a fine photo. I hope you restore that and nominate it. And I enjoyed this conversation; don't apologize. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please get to work on that one! I'll support that any day. Fancy such a pic as POTD. w.carter-Talk 08:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the dark background works very nicely in this case, as it's still bright enough to make the clothing stand out against it. That's more or less what I had in mind when we were discussing the Carver image. --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A plus for historic value in that's a picture of a notable woman taken by an early female photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 08:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. Maybe I'm over-analyzing again, but: Her eyes are nearly dead center on the vertical axis, which is kind of a no-go in most cases. That's of course due to that large feather on the hat, which otherwise wouldn't fit into the frame. The hat is pretty dominant in this image, being 1) pretty large, 2) pretty contrasty (despite being black) and 3) positioned in a place where we'd normally expect the eyes to be in a portrait. The face is very small in comparison, and almost everything else is hidden by fur. So by conventional "rules", this image probably shouldn't work. The reason it actually does work very well for me is the expression on her face. More precisely: her eyes are powerful enough to draw my attention away from that ridiculous piece of head-wear. I could stare at this for hours … --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Boardwalk south harbour Lysekil.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 10:45:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by W.carter - uploaded by W.carter - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 10:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- w.carter-Talk 10:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I enjoy moving my eye around this composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is striking, and well done. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work at all for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is very high but honestly I wouldn't go as far to say it's just a snapshot but I don't see anything special here ("no wow"). Can you really imagine having this as POTD or POTY candidate? Maybe it would work better in a B/W version. --Code (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, any FP gets a shot at POTD. As for POTY, all FPs are candidates in the opening round, but maybe we should have a discussion on the talk page again, because I certainly wouldn't vote for every FP for POTY. I think it's entirely reasonable to have different standards for FP than for POTY. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think B/W is such a good idea here since the musty yellow color is why the fence stands out. It's also a very good complementary color to the blue sea. Granted, it's not a grand castle or monument, I tend to see lines and beauty in ordinary everyday things. I leave it up to others to decide whether such things have a place among FP. Thanks for showing an interest though. :) w.carter-Talk 08:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For whatever it's worth, I agree that the yellow, blue and other colors are integral to this picture and black & white probably wouldn't be as good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I see what you mean. I thought the picture was more about lines than colours. That's why I supposed to try a B/W version. I still don't think I can support it. It's not clear enough in my eyes. There's too much going on: The yellow fence is quite dominant and makes the whole picture look very narrow. Then there are the green plants above, the people, the masts of the yachts, the sea, the sky, the water. I'm missing a focus in a compositional sense. --Code (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the walk is narrow and it is a wacky picure. :) w.carter-Talk 10:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good, but in no way outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing outstanding. JukoFF (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I should probably withdraw it by now, but I always want to hear whatever critique there is and it's only a couple of days 'till the deadline axe falls anyway. w.carter-Talk 20:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ventilationsskatte Langkær Gymnasium.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 19:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! w.carter-Talk 21:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A photo like this is really a matter of taste, and I don't happen to feel wowed by it, though it's certainly a good photo. The composition isn't feeling interesting enough to me to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Ali Zifan 23:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image that would make me strongly consider buying the album it would be used as a cover image for. Great forms and composition with tight detail. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special here --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like this kind of pictures, where the photographer takes a simple, mundane object and turns it into something interesting. Spot one of those objects and you're halfway there, but that's easier said than done and I think you've made an excellent pick here (and I agree with Daniel: subject-wise this could make a great record cover). But I'm still not totally convinced by the resulting image, and I'm not even quite sure why. Maybe it's the lighting situation: Maybe it would work better for me if the left part of the brick wall wasn't covered in shadows. Maybe a blue sky would help or maybe a black and white image taken on a cloudy, shadowless day on grainy film. Maybe a wider crop could help, with the brick wall columns on the left and right about as wide as the on in the centre. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review - I will try to make an other picture like you mentioned. "with the brick wall columns on the left and right about as wide as the on in the centre." on a day with th eright sunshine. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both versions. True, the shadows might be a bit disturbing but that is a matter of taste and it doesn't bother me. The composition with the concrete pipes in front of the red brick wall has wow enough for me as a piece of contemporary art. --Pugilist (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no favorites. JukoFF (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see reason for FP nomination here. --Karelj (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alternative File:Cover musicalbum.jpg edit

Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen
InfoThis is in album cover format, from a cloudy day with some rain, thanks to Daniel Case and El Grafo --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)19:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great album cover. --Pugilist (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an alternative, but another picture of the same subject. Please nominate separately.--Jebulon (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay - I will do that. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DurhamCastle (www.xtof.photo).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 22:59:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Durham Castle, as viewed from its courtyard.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by XtoF - uploaded by XtoF - nominated by XtoF -- XtoF (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XtoF (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The uneven and uncomplimentary light and shadow, the tight framing, the building leaning in at left. No wow here for me. INeverCry 23:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty motif, but next time, try not to cut off the left side and apply perspective correction to your photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective problem. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion and bad crops, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and lacks a bit on the tech side. w.carter-Talk 20:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Maria della Steccata (Parma) - Dome.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 19:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the dome, but: (1) It feels somewhat too bright and a bit washed out to me, so would you consider playing with the brightness and contrast? (2) I definitely don't like the unsharp areas to the left and right, especially the rainbow colors on the lower right of the picture frame - some kind of problem with light going through the lens? Overall, I would suggest making this a square picture of just the dome. In its current version, I would Oppose the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp in the borders left and right, and oversharpening in the center. --The Photographer (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are many small things that adds up to this not wow me, such as the prism light in the right corner, the two light blobs at the bottom, slightly unsymmetrical crop, too bright middle and dark ends. w.carter-Talk 07:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights. I know, I know, it was a long exposure, but there are workarounds for this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ok guys...understood. Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Børsen Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 06:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We've recently judged a couple of unconventional pictures of the Børsen. How about this picture of the whole building? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole thing is even more impressive. I see that you worked hard on getting the cars evenly spaced and sized as well. ;) Good crop. w.carter-Talk 09:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I cloned out a too prominent car in foreground, as indicated in the "retouche" template on the file page...--Jebulon (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I don't like the cars,for the rest excellent --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the cars, too. I waited for a long time, but no way to avoid all of them. :(--Jebulon (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support The traffic lights are kind of posterized looking, but they're such a small part of the overall image as to not ruin it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 15:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover musicalbum.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 22:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThis is in album cover format, from a cloudy day, thanks to Daniel Case and El Grafo for ibspiration. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version too, maybe even a bit better than the other one. INeverCry 23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this one. The even light helps me move my eyes around the picture frame. By comparison, the strong light and shadow in the other picture hinders my eyes' movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like this one too, it has more breathing space. Although this is clearly for a different music genre than the previous. w.carter-Talk 09:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never expected it to get this far. Now ... what band, or in what subgenre of music, would we expect to see this used as a cover? Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moby? w.carter-Talk 11:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Ramones pop to my mind. But that would require some additional rebellious youngsters in ripped-up denim and black leather jackets smoking cigarettes. --El Grafo (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this one much better. --El Grafo (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AD2009Sep20 Amanita muscaria 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 09:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created & uploaded by Bernie Kohl - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - The mushroom is very interesting to look at, but I tend to think it's not sharp enough to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? The sharpness looks to me quite nice. Tomer T (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Matter of taste, I guess. The stem is quite sharp, but I'd like the cap to be sharper. But in addition, I'm not so happy with the bokeh on the left side. Let's see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any sharpness issue here. Very good picture IMO. --Code (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such a lovely shade of gold, so warm and inviting that you want to reach in and eat it ... but as I recalled from the Linnaean name, and had confirmed in the file description, you'd very much regret it although you will probably live to tell the tale. As such, this image perfectly captures the allure of dangerous things, like "Waterfalls" or U2's "An Cat Dubh". And while I'd normally agree with Ikan about the unsharpness and, while still supporting, suggest some of it could be cropped out, I think in this case that I'd keep it. Not only does enhance the appeal I noted, suggesting the viewer is so enraptured by the mushroom s/he is neglecting everything else, it also calls to mind the hallucinatory qualities of the fungus also discussed in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's really interesting, Daniel. I'll think about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still find the bokeh at full size a bit of a bad trip, so I'll remain the odd man out and continue to oppose, although I expect this picture to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 18:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Code Ali Zifan 23:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bokeh and sharpness are fine for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WB looks too yellow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The WB depends on where you sample it. I checked the foot and that came out ok, the white is very slightly yellower on the top, but I think that's called afternoon sunlight. Would have preferred if the bokeh was the same "height" on both sides since it seems to tilt a bit now, but it's not a deal breaker for me. w.carter-Talk 17:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Physicist Stephen Hawking in Zero Gravity NASA.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 17:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Jacopo Werther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's awesome that we have this picture, and it absolutely should be featured! I'd really like some noise reduction, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any photo of Hawking out of his wheelchair is, like photos of FDR in his, rare enough to be historical enough for FP all by itself. That he's enjoying simulated microgravity here is even more to the point. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This makes me happy :) ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 15:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Propagation of action potential along myelinated nerve fiber en.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2016 at 19:11:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated. Biology section
Info created by Helixitta - uploaded by Helixitta - nominated by Helixitta
Support--Helixitta (t.) 19:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not SVG? --The Photographer (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a technical problem in converting this type of cdr file into svg one, it gets all jumbled. It is a recognized CorelDraw problem, and as far as I know there is no convenient solution. It springs from having complicated fill/transparency settings of some of the curves. I could ditch this settings but it is very useful in demonstrating how axon is wrapped in Schwann cells (the green tube inside yellowish oblong ones). So, basically, either it is a good, pretty illustration, or it is in svg format. I choose the former.
BTW, if you know how to do it, I would be all to happy to hear it. --Helixitta (t.) 21:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now it's svg. Was a bit easier than I thought. --Helixitta (t.) 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, could you do the text editable? (Another font like Vedana instead of AvantGardeC), I want translate it to spanish. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now it's Verdana (I hope you meant that one). --Helixitta (t.) 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Helixitta (t.) 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support But an editable-text version would be nice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I'm not sure what you mean by that, it was editable. I can edit the text in textpad easily. Anyways, I've changed the font so maybe it would help. --Helixitta (t.) 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7... INeverCry 19:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. The SVG code seems to be invalid. I would support if you fix its only error. Ali Zifan 23:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not that good in editing svg in text editors and this one is generated by Corel so I have no idea where it actually is... --Helixitta (t.) 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be interesting for you read this example --The Photographer (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice picture! Electrophysiologists approve. ;-)--Brunei (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reconciliation by Vasconcellos, Coventry.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 07:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Martinvl - uploaded by Martinvl - nominated by Martinvl -- Martinvl (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martinvl (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not ready to vote on whether to feature this picture. I'd make two observations: (1) It's a well-taken picture. (2) It's small and probably will be judged too small. Most FPs are at least 6 MP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is no FOP tag on this one. Do we know what its copyright status is? I believe that it might be OK, having taken pictures of potentially covered subjects in the UK myself and uploaded them here, but I will not !vote (and would advise anyone else not to) until we know whether this is definitely a free image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've answered my own question. It's OK. However, I ...

... Oppose as the background is too complex, diluting the image of the sculpture and distracting from it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. I love the sculpture though, and this deserves the QI/VI status it has. INeverCry 19:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I said, it's a well-taken photo. As for the background: (a) I like it in the picture, compositionally; it's a beautiful background, cropped so as to make a nice frame, and the sculpture fits into the view. (b) That's what the background is. (c) It gives an appropriate sense of place to a photo from Coventry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016 Anioł przed mauzoleum von Magnisów w Ołdrzychowicach Kłodzkich.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 14:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love this well-lit profile view, so I'm OK with the background being a bit blurry at full size. The photo looks great at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amanecer en el lago Titicaca, Puno, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 20:59:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Sunrise in the Lake Titicaca, near Puno, in the Peruvian Andes, not far from Bolivia. The lake is, by volume of water, the largest in South America and, with a surface elevation of 3,812 metres (12,507 ft), it's considered the highest navigable lake in the world. The lake has a max. lenght of 190 kilometres (120 mi) and width of 80 kilometres (50 mi) and a surface of 8,372 square kilometres (3,232 sq mi), whereas the water volume is 893 cubic kilometres (214 cu mi) with a max. depth of 281 metres (922 ft) and an average depth of 107 metres (351 ft). All by me, Poc o² 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it were anyone else I might think they overdid this, because it looks almost too painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support what colors! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wasn't sure about the pure-black parts but after considering again I think it's an excellent picture. --Code (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bridge Vittorio Emanuele II at sunset.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 19:47:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the subdued tones of the overcast evening cause this photo not to wow me the way a more colorful sunset could, but I think it's a very well-composed picture and a deserving candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It remembers me something. I agree with Ikan Kekek, but I think finaly that yours is better than mine.--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast between warm colors of illuminated structures and cool colors of the dusk. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Engelsburg und Engelsbrücke abends.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 23:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 23:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 00:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo is literally splendid, with the light streaming across the bridge toward the viewer's eyes. It's not perfect: the ghosts bother me at full size, and there's some blurring to the right of the bridge. But overall, it's a great photo and very deserving of a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is amazing that you can get such sharpness in your images at full resolution. Brilliant pic. Nikhil (talk)
Support great! Been there, tried that, failed (unfortunate lighting). It's pretty much impossible to avoid ghosts in this extremely popular location --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan Kekek and Martin Falbisoner. Excellent and very impressive sharpness. A (very) slight crop at right could provide a better impression of perfect symmetry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have many splendid pictures of Castel Sant'Angelo but this is very good indeed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Reguyla (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Icy shores of Lake Michigan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 18:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Chris Wemmert nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing textures. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Arion. Really special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to see Natuur12 at FPC. INeverCry 00:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 07:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely ice textures. Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indriati Iskak in a promotional still (c. 1960), by Tati Photo Studio.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2016 at 03:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People #Standing people
Info created by Tati Photo Studio - scanned by Chris Woodrich - restored by Chris Woodrich and Adam Cuerden - nominated by Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Full body studio portrait of Indriati Iskak, a young Indonesian actress who rose to fame with Tiga Dara but retired from cinema after marriage. A colourized version of this image was published on the cover of Selecta magazine in 1960.
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as partial restorer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely a high-quality portrait, and it really stands up through the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photos like this are like time capsules. w.carter-Talk 08:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice restore and a very good portrait. --Pugilist (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Pen'Hir.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 21:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama stitching of the pointe de Pen-Hir.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Diwall - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful at full-page size and good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gorgeous — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thankfully there is a high sculpture on the right, wouldn't have been as wow-y without it. It really dots the i. w.carter-Talk 08:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a few distort but good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reflection cross Marmor kirke Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 20:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 20:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just kept coming back to this "bat signal". w.carter-Talk 20:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which would probably fit with this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- w.carter-Talk 20:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations, Jebulon! Fine details! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good artistic photo. I'm glad you thought of this idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love the concept. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful accident. Not a reflection, though—that's the sunlight itself. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My poor english... Any idea for a good english filename ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could alway call it "Light from stained glass window" like I did in the description of the nom. w.carter-Talk 14:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Albertus ! This is a lutheran church !💒--Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice catch! I suggest improving the filename as it's a little misleading currently. --Ximonic (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caribbean Sea - Long Exposure.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2016 at 06:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info A photograph like a painting. I could stare at it for hours. Created and uploaded by Martin Falbisoner - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. That's quite engrossing to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support First time I've seen that technique used on horizontal waves rather than on falling water of some kind. Very interesting. w.carter-Talk 07:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot for nominating the picture - I really apprecitate that! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful use of long exposure. Waves look like painting strokes. - Benh (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 19:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 00:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I often dislike long exposure photographs of moving water because it tends to make it look like flowing sugar, but in this case it works exceptionally well for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, looks to unnatural to me, especially the horizon. --Milseburg (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milseburg: I won't argue about the waves looking unnatural, as that's been done intentionally and everyone is free to like it or not. But regarding the horizon: The strange white line you see in the preview images is most likely due to how Mediawiki downsizes and sharpens images to create thumbnails – it does not exist in the original full size image. --El Grafo (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support MMmmmmmmmmmm ... that really sums it up, Because those blurred waves are the photographic equivalent of all those overdubbed vocals in an Enya song (And there's an obvious one, to which I am listening right now to enhance the emotions this image stirs in me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for be a long exposition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a painting. Great job. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Reguyla (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Gustave Moreau 004.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2016 at 10:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Gustave Moreau - uploaded by User:Brandmeister - nominated by Brandmeister -- Brandmeister (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brandmeister (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Regardless of any other issues, the bottom line is that it's reduced in size from a 43.5 MB source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about File:Moreau, Gustave - Jupiter und Semele - 1896.jpg, that's a wholly different file, with inferior quality at full size, despite being larger. Brandmeister (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding. I looked at the larger file, and it is a pixellated book scan. I'm not so sure the light is optimal on this photo, though. It certainly is an interesting image. I'll punt the decision to others and be

Neutral. This painting really needs restoration, and I hope that if/when they do restore it, they are conservative and careful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan; it's a good illustration of "before" restoration, in addition to being a notable work in its own right. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lüdinghausen, Berenbrock, Dortmund-Ems-Kanal (an der Kreisstraße 23) -- 2015 -- 4668-70.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2016 at 05:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by XRay - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is really poetic like a great painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ikan, could be in the Tate. w.carter-Talk 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to write ... it reminds me XRay --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 16:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice sunrise to go with all the sunsets. (Addition post-!vote: Althuogh I'd have cropped more of the top) Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to everybody, thanks to Christian Ferrer for nomination. --XRay ^talk 11:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful atmosphere -- Spurzem (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Opening and Closing of Stoma.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 21:28:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Ali Zifan. It also passed under the W3C validator without any errors and warnings. Ali Zifan 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting to look at, and the red potassium ions have the (unintended?) virtue of helping the viewer move their eyes around the picture frame - in other words, they have an artistic structural function, while also being utilitarian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. Excellent that you also provided a version with editable text so the pic can be used for different languages. I was about to ask about that when I saw the previous version. w.carter-Talk 09:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best .SVG diagrams I've seen here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bow shipwreck Nea Artaki Evia Greece.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2016 at 17:06:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shipwreck in Greece. Find the fishes ! -- Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting pic with fishes and those sea creatures straight out of Avatar, but I don't think it's sharp enough for an FP. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for interest. Do you think that what is under water should be as sharp as what is over water ? It is simply impossible, due to rules of optics !--Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The weird thing is that on my screen the object under water in front of the bow actually looks sharper than most of the boat above water. The rusty chain is sharp, but the sides of the boat and the barnacles are just a bit unfocused. Guess the chain and the things under water in front of the bow are at the same distance from the camera. But if that slight unfocus is generally accepted in FPs, I'll be happy to change my vote to support because of the interesting object. w.carter-Talk 11:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't change anything, you vote is welcome, even opposing. I understand what you mean and I agree for part, maybe the DoF was a bit too short. My goal was to empasise the front part of the bow, with the chain, indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you take it that way. I guess I'm sometimes too influenced by my work (publicing company) where all close range pics have to be knife sharp. I also know what you mean about opposeing votes, those are the ones that have taught me most here and I always welcome them myself for that reason. w.carter-Talk 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think it's sharp enough. The part above the water is clear, and water is sometimes cloudy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian Ferrer: what do you think now ? Ce ne sont pas des aberrations chromatiques à proprement parler, car ça ne vient pas de la lentille. C'est l'effet de prisme dû à la décomposition de la lumière sous l'eau, vu de l'extérieur. C'est visible à l'oeil nu. C'est corrigé. Merci de ta remarque.--Jebulon (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed this is a kind of purple fringing, thank you for the correction, this is indeed better now although being fussy we can still find but it does not really matter. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 09:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing outstanding. I find it difficult to understand what put so many positive votes. JukoFF (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a random something ... see nothing featurable here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too harsh comment, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are trying to put pressure on voters. JukoFF (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does not matter. ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And so what ? 😳🙃 Even if, I hope that reviewers are adult and strong enough to resist...And I'm sure my old fellow Alchemist-hp is.--Jebulon (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Laudtee Meenikunnos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 11:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Külli Kolina - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really great light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please fix the bad CA. -- -donald- (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reichstagsufer, Berlin-Mitte, 360x180, 160401, ako.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 05:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Spherical panorama of Reichstagsufer, Berlin-Mitte. Please check it in the 360° viewer before voting. Thank you! All by me. -- Code (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not perfect - the darkest part of the sky looks pixellated - but brilliant! How do you manage to get trailless stars and photograph everything that's so much lighter clearly? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for you comment, Ikan. I don't know exactly what you mean by saying "pixellated" but it's always difficult to apply the right amount of noise reduction. For this kind of pictures I usually use the Samyang 14mm lens. At this focal length you can use a longer exposure time without getting star trails. Of course I do some retouching, too. --Code (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I mean by "pixellated" is that the darkest sections directly overhead have angular shapes that don't look real to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's probably because these parts have been stretched by the panorama stitching software in order to create the equirectangular (360x180) picture. --Code (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Think you could get the same at dusk? - Benh (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really a joy to browse. Thanks for sharing this! - Benh (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Benh. I tried to take the same picture somewhat earlier but the place was very crowdy then. At the moment a daily light show takes place there every evening until october, 3rd so until then no second try will be possible. But anyways it's a great place to take photographs and I'm going there from time to time. --Code (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 19:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am thinking of adding this pic to the Category:Surrealism. w.carter-Talk 20:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work --The Photographer (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1 cusco cuzco peru panorama 2014.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 19:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created & uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't decided how to vote on this nomination, but a few observations: This is certainly a valuable and well-composed photo which, to my mind, unquestionably deserves Valued and Quality Image approval if nominated. So that's all on the plus side. On the minus side is a degree of noise in the sky, though not that much, and haze on all the hills beyond the city that makes them less inviting to look at than I'd prefer. In general, I think we've seen some panoramas of cities and surrounding countryside that are a lot sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent picture and I'll support this nomination given that you remove the several dust spots in the sky. A little bit of noise reduction in the sky would be appreciated, too. --Code (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the technical ability to make these changes. Tomer T (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, I think. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not seeing a difference, and I cleared my cache. Did you do anything other than remove dust spots that I hadn't seen in the first place? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Denoised (Noise Ninja setting 13, sky only) and dust spots removed (I counted about 12, looks like there was just one or two specks on the sensor which got multiplied by the stitching of the panorama). I didn't touch anything else. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I do see a bit of denoising in the sky. I'm still undecided on the picture as a whole, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Color SEM 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 15:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and Minerals
Info An electron micrograph of volcanic sublimates (minerals) in natural colors. Created by Ppm61 - uploaded by Ppm61 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but only 1,9 megapixels is not enough. --Ivar (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - So beautiful and weird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support small file but great picture --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Martin Falbisoner says. Is this perhaps a crop from a larger original picture? w.carter-Talk 11:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Karelj (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Reguyla (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gabrielle et Jean, by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, from C2RMF cropped.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 14:09:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Today's featured picture on the English language Wikipedia.-- Claus 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very detailed --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose The woman and child look half-decent, but what do they have there in front of them? She looks to have a little toy bull possibly, while the kid looks like he's pulling a wad of dough off the table. Not an attractive painting overall, Renoir or no. INeverCry 23:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sweet ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 15:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Porsche 356 A Speedster 1600 Super, Bj. 1956, Heck (2016-07-02 Sp).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 14:19:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created and uploaded by Spurzem - nominated by User:Spurzem
Neutral -- Spurzem (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice car--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good car shot, but doesn't wow me. INeverCry 21:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very convincing argument. ;-) I never heard a better one. -- Spurzem (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jetzt komm, Lothar, so neu bist du hier nicht. Man braucht sein Kontra hier sogar überhaupt nicht zu begründen, und wenn man es dennoch tut, ist es ein Hinweis an den Autor bzw. Nominator, was dem Bild fehlt. Und ja, „no wow“ ist ausreichend für eine Ablehnung auf FPC, denn ein FP braucht „wow“ (kannst du in den Guidelines nachlesen). Bitte reagier auf Ablehnung nicht immer gleich so angepisst. Nicht jeder hat deinen Geschmack, und um als Fotograf erfolgreich zu sein, sollte man den Geschmack seines Publikums studieren und berücksichtigen (außer man ist richtig verdammt gut, und so richtig verdammt gut bist du nicht). Die Gelegenheit hast du hier kostenlos. Wenn du das lieber als persönliche Beleidigung auffaßt, ist es allein dein Problem. Issochwahr. --Kreuz schnabel 21:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, no doubt a good quality car shot (and car!) but the location is a bit busy and the light a little bland, hence no wow for me either. Perhaps there is a better place down the road to shoot it. w.carter-Talk 22:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I seriously considered a supporting vote, but I find the light a bit dull. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, just a QI of a classic car. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is really a good image but the pavement is too dominant. I think a crop of the bottom will improve it, crop of all is under the edge of the bottom right of the sidewalk. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination O.K. – I withdraw. Now I know that buildings with distorted walls and towers are FP but cars with flowers in the background are no wow. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't take it badly. Most of us have faced a barrage of "oppose" here even when we thought we had the perfect image but also been surprised when we though no one would vote for an image and it got promoted. Please try again with another pic. w.carter-Talk 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sardinia Arbatax Rocce rosse-1464.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 07:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just a touch smaller than 6MP, but in my opinion a well-taken photo of an unusual and striking rock formation on the seacoast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was on my FPC queue, too. --Code (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 08:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are you sure you did not make this out of Play-Doh? :) The little "window" is what makes it interesting and also the grass tuft mimmicing the shape of the rock. Some of the grey rocks to the bottom left are a bit bright, but I can live with that. w.carter-Talk 09:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ali Zifan 16:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose The way the tuft of grass partially obscures the window in the rock formation bothers me a little. INeverCry 17:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though I'm OK with that, your objection is certainly sensible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sort of evokes The Seven Pillars of Wisdom in Wadi Rum in reverse. A bit smaller than I'd like, but it'll do. Is that entry artificial? Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cut suggested (see note), overdenoising, Underexposed a bit, and could be nice add a element to know the real size of this nature monument. --The Photographer (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isiwal, any thoughts on The Photographer's remarks? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to Ikan Kekek for nomination and all the reviews. I respect The Photographer´s remarks: denoising could be a tad less (but the rock itself has that soft appearance because of weathering), brightness could be a bit higher. I reduced the original exposure in Lightroom for 1/2 aperture because on some monitors the picture looked palish. The width of sky could be a bit less. The composition is that way because there is a wall at the left lower corner - one can see the remaining white spot - I would prefer to remain in the original width-to-height ratio - don´t know where 7px of height got lost. The size of the rock is not that big - watch the person behind the grass, the window seems to be natural. The creative leeway on disillusioning location is limited but this should not apologize anything or have an impact on review. --Isiwal (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 22:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spring fresco Akrotiri NAMA.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 14:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inside picture, no flash, no tripod, from the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece. The "Spring fresco" of Akrotiri (Santorini). This is the only wall-painting found in situ in Santorini (a.k.a. Thera), covering three walls of the same room. There is no other example of such a work in the whole Greece. Akrotiri was buried by the massive Minoan eruption (Theran eruption) in the middle of the second millennium BCE, during the Late Minoan IA period; as a result, like the Roman ruins of Pompeii many centuries later, it is remarkably well-preserved. Frescoes like this one, pottery, furniture, advanced drainage systems and three-story buildings have been discovered at the site. I'm particularly sensitive to enjoy, 3.500 years later, the couple of kissing swallows. NAMA, N°BE 1974.29. -- Jebulon (d) 14:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC) -- Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that you cropped it so that it looks like a Vermeer painting at first glance (a room with light falling into it and something going on in it). w.carter-Talk 20:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Theresa May 2015.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 21:28:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
Info created by UK Home Office - uploaded by Firebrace - nominated by Firebrace -- Firebrace (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Firebrace (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A decent portrait, and QI no doubt, but pretty basic. No wow factor. INeverCry 23:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then this portrait of Angela Merkel should not be a featured picture? What about this one of Jens Stoltenberg, or this one of Erck Rickmers... Firebrace (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per INC, and to answer your question, I would vote to feature only the photo of Stoltenberg and neither of the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent portrait, no flaws, featurable by itself IMO. Per Firebrace, the comparison with Frau Merkel is relevant. This nomination is a good reaction of "Commons" to the current political events in Britain.--Jebulon (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per INC. To further the oppose response to Firebrace, while I might well not have supported featuring the Rickmers portrait, the Merkel and Stoltenberg ones have some dynamics (raised arm, face looking past the camera) that this one does not. Frankly it's just a very well-done ID photo. I'm sure as her time in No. 10 continues there will be ample opportunity for more featurable photo ops. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the Merkel picture would be feature-worthy if her hand was in shot. It isn't obvious that she is waving; she could be holding on to something or leaning against a wall – the crop and background mean there is no context. She also has a red glow on the side of her hair... Firebrace (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon. Extremely useful, unfortunately downscaled. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent naturally portrait. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no "wow" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valle Arcoiris, Río Grande, Chile, 2016-02-05, DD 16-18 PAN.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 06:59:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the Rainbow Valley, Río Grande, Comune of San Pedro de Atacama, El Loa Province, Antofagasta Region, northern Chile. The valley, located 3,500 metres (11,500 ft) over the sea level, is difficult to access but still has become popular due to the explosion of colors in its hills that gave it its name. All by me, Poc o² 06:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect Pastel Palette --w.carter-Talk 10:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A third of a world away, this reminds me more of Wadi Rum than most photographs of the Namibian desert do, despite the more similarly colored sand. Amazing. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Reguyla (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Мала Река.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 12:59:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support very special, almost mysterious mood. Works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bad license: Wikimedia Commons does not allow NC-only licenses. Please clarify that this picture is published under a proper license, otherwise the picture will be deleted! --Code (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The license is acceptable per Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing, as the NC license is followed by a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. INeverCry 17:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: This doesn't look like multi-licensing to me. It seems more that the user wanted NC-only but didn't find a fitting license tag so he used the BY-SA. It doesn't make any sense to use CC BY-NC and CC BY-SA at the same time. Look at the custom license tag: He doesn't write that one can use the picture under BY-SA or BY-NC. According to the custom license tag choosing BY-NC is the only way to properly use the picture. Additionally the EXIF says "All Rights Reserved". At least the user should clarify that both licenses apply. --Code (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, why would anybody dual-license something with CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-NC? That doesn't make sense to me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for multi-licensing either, and I would end it if I could, but it's part of Commons policy. If someone were to use this file for commercial gain, the author would have no legal recourse at all as long as the commercial use attributed him correctly and used CC-BY-SA-4.0. Commons:Multi-licensing gives the full policy on this. INeverCry 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: I strongly disagree with that. If you want to use the work, you have to make sure you have a valid license. Ambiguities will be borne by the person who wants to use the photo, not by the photographer. Petrovskyz writes in his custom license tag that he has "published this media under the terms of the license CC BY-NC 4.0". Nothing else. He doesn't state he published the work "under both CC BY-NC 4.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0" what would be very easy for him to add. It would be very easy for him to clarify that both licenses apply. As long as he doesn't we have to assume that he wanted to publish the picture under BY-NC only. I do not understand why we should accept his unclear licensing informations. It is very noteworthy that he does not participate on this discussion. --Code (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you Code (I don't like to see GFDL/NC/ND licenses on Commons at all), but it looks like he may be complying with the letter of the policy. We can ask a few of the local copyright specialists what their take is on this. @Jameslwoodward: @Clindberg: @Stefan2: If you guys have time, can you take a look at this? Should he make his personal licensing template clearer? Is the included CC-BY-SA-4.0 below it sufficient? Thanks in advance. INeverCry 23:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing is fine; licensing under both CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-SA makes perfect sense (you can use it in noncommercial derivative works without a license being forced on yours, or commercial derivative works licensed CC-BY-SA). It would be better if both tags were under the "Licensing" header, and of course using {{Multi-license}} before both would help too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I could've sworn I'd seen a "SA" in the "NC"-license box. Thanks for pointing that out, it does indeed make perfect sense. --El Grafo (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not wowed by this, especially the harsh lighting in the foliage at top left. INeverCry 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, some of the lighting is very harsh when viewed at full size, but at full-page size, the lights and darks are well balanced, and I find this a beautiful, painterly composition. My decision to support this isn't even close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy background and not really that exceptional composition-wise. Also the blown areas. Was an ND filter used here? Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alice C. Evans, National Photo Company portrait, circa 1915.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 02:53:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by the National Photo Company - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good picture of a historically important person I didn't know about, and pretty sharp even at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 07:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great EV and Wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another good historic environmental portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Pobreza en Maracaibo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 02:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't feel whatever I say would be adequate, so I'll just vote to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 03:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong pic. w.carter-Talk 07:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support #SOSVenezuela. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frankly, I don't understand what this picture should say to me, nor why it is considered to be featured. It shows a boy standing on ruins of an unspecified building or structure. No special relation to Venezuela and its topics, except that it's a contribution to the scope "Children of Venezuela", where there already are much better pictures... --A.Savin 11:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children living in Favelas of Venezuela play in areas of trash and debris. The debris material is brick type with which the makeshift dwellings, in this case, is a favela called Valle Frio 3, this place is the poorest in the urban center of Maracaibo city are manufactured. In the picture you can see a faithful representation of a playground in a neighborhood. Thanks for your comment and vote. --The Photographer (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some little white lines by his leg. See note. Do you know what those are? w.carter-Talk 15:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other children were throwing things behind him, children of this area don't have toys, however, they play with any rubbish. --The Photographer (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another National Geographic-quality social documentary photo. Striking, in no small part thanks to the angle, and we see just enough of the boy's face to speculate about what he might be thinking. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like that he at least looks focused like he is wondering something and not sad or empty. Makes you wonder what he'll be when he grows up. w.carter-Talk 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think like A.Savin here....and more,the personal rights? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand what the pic wants to say but the wow is limited for me, there could be more impressive compositions (the background doesn’t really fit), and technically, the image is very soft at just 5.5 mpix. I usually expect FPCs of less than 10 mpix to be crisp sharp. --Kreuz schnabel 08:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No WOW for me. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamburg, Speicherstadt, Wasserschloss -- 2016 -- 3265-71.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 09:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by XRay - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been looking at XRay's pictures of the Wasserschloss. I think several are of featurable quality and couldn't figure out which one I liked best. It's interesting to compare this picture to the only currently featured picture of a similar view, by Der Wolf im Wald. Thomas' picture is more resplendent so perhaps more beautiful per se, but the flip side is that Dietmar's picture could easily be said to have better light control. I think both versions are valid and can easily coexist as featured pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture though has more visible details as the other FP has more overblown areas in it. The contrasts in this one are more subtle which I personally like more in this case. Good one. --Ximonic (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 11:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 18:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice :)--PierreSelim (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to Christian and all reviewers. It was a very nice weekend with two other photographers. --XRay ^talk 17:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent combination of warm and cool colors. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Streptopelia decaocto, Forest How, Eskdale.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 08:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Peter Trimming - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 08:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info The tail is a little out-of-focus, but there are no FPs of this bird. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 08:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a good QI (if nominated) with particularly pretty bokeh, but it's below FP quality for bird pictures. FP bird pictures show practically every feather individually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, and I think I would prefer this as a square or vertical composition, or at least something tighter than this. INeverCry 18:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely colors, but bokeh is noisy and I think this could have been avoided. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duomo(Mantua) - Dome.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 17:39:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support At last. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing Duomo painting, however, IMHO the quality could be better (unsharp, overprocess). I'm sorry --The Photographer (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, this is terrific! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support under processed: sharpness, it can be much more oversharpened . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Aigrette garzette au lac sud de Tunis (site RAMSAR).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 21:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by Touzrimounir -- Touzrimounir (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Touzrimounir (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice , but sorry: oversharpened. Very pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please look at pictures of birds that have been featured lately. Except when something else, such as their environment, is also being focused on, they tend to be clear to the point that almost every individual feather seems to be separately visible. The tail feathers or part of the head might be just a little bit soft in focus, but few concessions are made. And the upshot is that this is a good picture, but below the extremely high FP level for birds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Ikan, I see the overprocessing clearly. Aesthetically, however, I think a better, bigger version of this would work with some of the dead space on the right cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2016 at 14:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ross Burgener - nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a fantastic pic, but much too noisy/grainy for my taste. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 14:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed the noise which made me slightly hesitate nominating it but than I noticed that some of the other FP's regarding Aurora australis are noisy as well (File:Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG, File:Aurora australis panorama.jpg) Same goes for other images of polar light (File:Polarlicht.jpg, File:Aurora Borealis NO.JPG). Natuur12 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have any trouble with the sky and the aurora being grainy, those are awful tricky to shoot and hey "it's full of stars". I'm more bothered by the snow. It's so grainy that it's visible at a normal 800X530 px view which is a shame because it is such gorgeous pic otherwise. w.carter-Talk 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a bit tilted and I'm a bit skeptical about the Igloo lighting, but it's a beautiful photo with both northern lights and a galactic center milky way! My position hasn't changed for noise: shouldn't be a reason to oppose unless it's really terrible. Shooting this is a bit more demanding that any other daylight landscape. - Benh (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks fine at full-page size but it's really noisy at full size. I don't feel I can support this picture but haven't decided whether to oppose and will probably be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose It's a striking image and I could forgive the noisy background due to the long exposure, but the igloo should have been sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.carter. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting idea. The noise level is acceptable for such a picture. --Code (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @All: it is possible to take more acceptable noise level images, sample: . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for me, NR is too strong on your picture, and I'd rather leave it like on this condidate. - Benh (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "My" image is an original JPG direct from my camera. Is isn' reworked from the RAW-file. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point still stands, wether NR was applied in camera or afterwards. - Benh (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ~~Jimmy~~ W.carter. Too noisy. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... that's ~~Jane~~ W.carter, Monsieur.

w.carter-Talk 17:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique. ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 15:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’d prefer a less grainy version but the amount of wow on my side still makes up for that. --Kreuz schnabel 08:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Commodore Grace M. Hopper, USN (covered).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 07:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by James S. Davis - uploaded by Jatkins, edited by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 07:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 07:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support this, but I'm sorry to say, I don't think the work done on this picture has improved it. To my eyes, there's more detail and life to her face in the original. She might find the revision flattering, as it softens the wrinkles, but I like the greater degree of redness in her face in the original. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does this mean I should oppose the current revision? Are we charged with opposing a feature if there's another version we consider superior? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think you'd be called upon to oppose only if you considered the current nominated version inferior to the point of not being FP worthy at all (I mean called upon in the sense that you yourself would feel an oppose was warranted). I don't think FPC imposes any restrictions on individual voting, aside from obvious problems like sockpuppetry/vote-stacking, canvassing, etc, nor should it. INeverCry 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have another idea: Am I permitted to nominate the original upload as an alternative, although I currently have two active nominations? If not, would someone else please do that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t like the fashion of putting up alternatives, as little as I like subsequent editing. Let’s judge a nomination as it is, no further editing being performed (in order not to compromise the votings given before!) and no alternatives. If the work needs re-editing, then better withdraw the first nomination and put the alternative up as a new candidate. This way the voting would be much clearer. --Kreuz schnabel 08:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've always liked this pic and her no-nonsense expression, but I have to agree with Ikan on this editing. Noise reduction on the background, clothes, etc. is great, but her face has lost a bit of life with it. Wrinkles are an honor badge that you have achieved high age and nothing to hide or retouch. w.carter-Talk 08:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft for my taste. Noisy too. No FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist-hp This image is from 1984. I think for that era it's pretty good. --Pine^✉ 15:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFirst, we usually don’t consider the circumstances a pic has been taken under but judge the result only (except on pictures of greatest historical importance). Second, "pretty good" is not sufficient to be featured. We still look for the outstanding. --Kreuz schnabel 08:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No FP. JukoFF (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support She's just got way too much character for me not to support this one. INeverCry 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't see featureness here. ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nmaia. No wow at all. --Kreuz schnabel 08:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything featurable. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kruusamägi. --Karelj (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galite-Galiton 122.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 07:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info Turlules' love in La Galite island created by ~~---- - uploaded by ~~---- - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI for sure, but no feature for me, nothing special. --Ikan Kekek schnabel 07:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree. It's a good capture but nothing really exceptional. I want to compliment you for taking good pictures, though, so please don't interpret opposition to a feature with showing disrespect for your work. I think you will break through sooner or later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dear Ikan Kekek thank you for the encouragement I ll improve everything --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality image for sure but not quite a featured picture. Shall I point out that the subject may lack some contrast versus the background. The background also looks quite busy. These are the main reasons the picture doesn't quite stand out as a FP for me. --Ximonic (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What Ikan says. Please keep going! :) w.carter-Talk 10:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. I'm amused by the idea of a turtle-sex picture and I can easily imagine this getting memed in hilarious and unexpected ways, but the subject matter alone does not make it featurable, and there isn't enough wow as an image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 17:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Mitchel Coombs - nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 21:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Remarkable picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Talk about perfect timing! w.carter-Talk 09:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW!!!! GREAT!!!! Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 10:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning in - see power pole --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A beautiful image no doubt, but in addition to the perspective issue noted by Uoaei1 I am bothered by the deep indigo tint of the sky. I know, I know, most great lightning pictures are long exposures, so this might be possible as a natural effect. But the .EXIF data says nothing about what camera was used, to say nothing of its settings, so we can't tell. I suspect some heavy processing here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loreleyblick Maria Ruh.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 07:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Jörg Braukmann| - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, esp. the camp site to the left. Pity. Anyway, it’s not too difficult to re-take this shot.--Kreuz schnabel 07:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, the image is overexposed. But that's easy to fix --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for giving feedback. Some little parts are bright, but overall I dont´t think it´s overexposed. It will be difficult for me to make a new oder revised version within the next few weeks. --Milseburg (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending correction of noted flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merivarblane.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 22:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created and uploaded by Tiit Hunt - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cyclopterus lumpus near Vääna-Jõesuu in Estonia. This ia a renomination.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes please! KennyOMG (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fish can fly!?! w.carter-Talk 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF is a bit shallow, but this image is nevertheless very good and interesting --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Uaoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Uoaei1. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 121.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 19:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info Interior view of Chuquicamata, a state-owned copper mine located 2,850 metres (9,350 ft) above sea level just outside Calama, north of Chile. It is by excavated volume the largest open pit copper mine in the world. The huge hole was started in 1882 as a mine to extract gold and copper. It is 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) long, 4.5 kilometres (2.8 mi) wide and with a depth of 850 metres (2,790 ft) it is the second deepest open-pit mine in the world (after Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah, USA). Note: to get a feeling of the scale spot out a haul truck, which is 9.5 metres (31 ft) long and 4.5 metres (15 ft) high.
An exterior view of the mine by Poco a poco gained FP status earlier (File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 110-112 PAN.JPG). This interior view is much different. The composition is well done, the technical quality is excellent, and the huge scale of the mine is even more clearly demonstrated. I also love the colors and texture of the rock layers.
Created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by INeverCry 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Reguyla (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but perhaps there should be a bit more cropping on the right side to eliminate the unsharp foreground in the lower right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you INeverCry, it was quicker than I expected. Should I crop it as Ikan suggested or do you want to re-nominate :P? Poc o² 21:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: I like it as is and wouldn't want to lose any of the road at bottom right in a crop. But it's your image, so you can make changes as you see fit. Personally I'm fed up with FPC and won't be participating here any more, as it's gotten less and less enjoyable for me over time. Good luck with this candidate. I'll stick to looking at nominations and downloading copies of the ones I like for my personal collection. INeverCry 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about what's taking the fun away for you, if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be really a pity, I'd also like to understand why Poc o² 19:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ali Zifan 21:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leave it be, you would loose the contrast between steps and slide. w.carter-Talk 21:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely texture and detail that unexpectedly works in this orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Noivinha-branca (Xolmis velatus) no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 14:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created and uploaded by Nortondefeis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good pic but definitely not sharp enough for a FP bird, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Just not enough to stand out among the many bird pics nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Las Bachas, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 28.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 09:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by W.carter
A nice pic as it looks as if the bird is rearing its head above the water and there is a great contrast between the soft feathers and the gritty stones, although I think that a slight crop to the left would make it even more interesting. See note. -- w.carter-Talk 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- w.carter-Talk 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I prefer this Featured Picture in category Pelecanus occidentalis urinator, also by Diego. I think the bird is about equally clear in both pictures, but I also prefer the white sand and white sand bokeh of that photo to the more obviously fuzzy bokeh in this one. I expect others to differ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, and I also think the bird doesn't stand out enough among the dark rocks. INeverCry 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't differ with Ikan; in fact I also find the background distracting given the bird's positioning. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support I believe that this image has indeed potential and will upload an improved version tomorrow morning (CET). The pelican is crispy everywhere and it is in its most frequent habitat, even if it doesn't stand out as much as one would desire. W.carter, thank you for the nom!! I appreciate it. Poc o² 21:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find it fascinating, sorry if others don't feel the same way. IMH the black rocks contrast the tip of the beak and the belly better than white sand. w.carter-Talk 21:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded, I am happy with the result, therefore full support :) Poc o² 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good crop and the "downy vs gritty" even more visible now. w.carter-Talk 11:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, INeverCry, and Martin Falbisoner: would reconsider their votes? Poc o² 12:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely improves the foreground, but I still have a problem with the middleground and background, so no change in vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC) * weak better! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piedras Rojas, salar de Aguas Calientes, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 69.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 21:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Piedras Rojas (in English "Red Stones"), a singular rock formation in the Aguas Calientes salt flat, high puna of northern Chilean Andes. The Aguas Calientes salt lake belongs to the bigger Talar salt lake, of a surface of 46 square kilometres (18 sq mi) and located at an altitude of 3,950 metres (12,960 ft). All by me, Poc o² 21:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan

01:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't oppose but I'd prefer a much tighter, more panoramic crop. Parts of the lake seem redundant, the sky is more important here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Falbisoner (talk • contribs) Poc o² 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are asking for Martin and, actually, if you look into the previous version of this image you will see that I tried to increase the panorama feeling. On the other side I also think that it is interesting to look into the bottom area, that gives the view an idea of the salt lake (including small piles of salt) with great detail Poc o² 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Convinced --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree on panoramic crop. The lake is a salt lake and I think the idea is to show off the piles of salt produced by it. w.carter-Talk 12:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support More lovely, almost abstract colors. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 22:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Однажды у берега моря. Панорама.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 15:03:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Peter the Great Gulf, Sea of Japan. Russia. Сreated by Андрей Кровлин - uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, this pic is just too heavily processed/retouched for me. There is clearly a lot of post-processing done and yet no {{Retouched picture}} is added to the file, there are clone marks on the cliffs on both sides of the horizon, some coordinates would also be nice since it is associated with a protected area that few people outside Russia understands the meaning of. A translation of the description in say English, French, Spanish or German could also be added to better understand the pic. It would make a great cover for a fantasy novel though. w.carter-Talk 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very unusual-looking scene. I do agree that there's something that looks a bit off about the water and sky at full size, but I'm satisfied with the picture at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellents colors and amazing sharpening, exposition, etc. --The Photographer (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per W. Carter. I do understand this was a long exposure, but we should know more about what was done in post. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per W. Carter --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but simply too much HDR kitsch. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the otherworldy eerie vibe I get from this. ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist.--Jebulon (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per w.carter who I agree completely. I like the picture but it's not quite up to what I expect from Wikipedia/Commons FP standard. Post-process has gone through too much artistic freedom to be concidered educational. Too little useful information is provided. I would understand better if such picture was a purposeful showcase of a post-processing technique. --Ximonic (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1, too much HDR kitsch. --Ralf Roleček 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Army Soldier in Full Kit in Afghanistan MOD 45152579.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 07:23:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Sgt Rupert Frere RLC/MOD - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 07:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 07:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per consensus. --Pine^✉ 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The picture is a bit small; however, it's valuable, interesting and sufficiently well-composed to merit a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Undecided. Yes it's valuable, encyclopedic, well-composed and all, but where is the wow? Perhaps it would be better suited for VI? w.carter-Talk 08:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A soldier, not more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per/Alchemist-hp JukoFF (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too static. No action or context to give this any excitement or interest. INeverCry 19:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist and INC. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per INeverCry. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination per consensus above. --Pine^✉ 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anathomia, a Mais Correcta - folha de rosto.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 14:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Text
Info created by Manuel Constâncio (1725-1817) - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If anyone knows a way to extract a higher res quality from the pdf, feel free to upload a better version :) -- ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the .pdf version and with higher resolution. Is it possible? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's tilted and I don't know what the historic importance is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: apart from being tilted, it’s way below 2 mpix minimum size --Kreuz schnabel 08:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elictites no Floresta Branca.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 13:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by JOSE HUMBERTO MATIAS DE PAULA - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild (see comment) Support Oh yes. I've liked this pic since the first time I saw it. I'm terrified that she will breathe too hard or trip and break some of the formations! Sharp and good, BUT I think it is tilted since stalactites always grow straight down due to gravity (water drops are clearly visible at the end of the stalactites). Any chance that the creator could straighten it or at least comment on if my suspicion is right. w.carter-Talk 14:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- Spurzem (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Amazing image quality, however, IMHO cut, tight and unnatural composition --The Photographer (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Why "unnatural composition"? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMhO the girl/boy has a forced pose of working, however, composition cut and tight is what make my vote neutral --The Photographer (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per The Photographer. Composition looks too tight, like she's too close to the formations. INeverCry 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to see how it looked, I did a slightly rotated version of the file, and it does not look as "tight" as in the tilted version where she seems to be leaning into the formations. Her proximity to the crystals also provides a good size/scale-thing. Let's hope the original editor can take a look at that and see if this is something to consider. w.carter-Talk 22:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Thanks! Add as alternative. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I find both versions too crowded-looking with the person in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The person in the image may be wowed, but I'm not. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Slightly rotated version, by W.carter. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:GUADELOUPE DYNAMIQUE 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 12:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support Pitch of boat and spray gives it a bit more than a just-QI straight-up view would. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overall light level is too low for me. The boat and sails don't pop. INeverCry 21:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if I love boats and know that this lead-grey sea is usually how it is, I have to agree with INC that it is a bit too dark for a wow. In this kind of light there needs to be something extraordinary going on for a pic to stand out. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 23:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice sailboat, but the scene is otherwise ordinary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow on my side, dull light, and centered compositions hardly ever work for moving objects. --Kreuz schnabel 08:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caça sobre o Rio.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 14:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military_jet_aircraft
Info created by Tomaz Silva/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 14:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning image, and a very noteworthy addition to to Commons repository.-- ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 14:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! -- Spurzem (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is pretty dirty. There's a brown spot below the plane, and several spots in the sky. INeverCry 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably dirt on the window it's taken through judging from the "plane window-shaped" shadow on the left. At just 0,6 Mb it's also a bit on the small side. w.carter-Talk 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no FP/ JukoFF (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the dirt spots, the picture isn't actually clear I'm afraid. The ground is out of focus either cause of motion blur, haze, or distance, while the jet is underexposed against the bright sky. -- KTC (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KTC. INeverCry 21:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KTC. w.carter-Talk 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you eliminate the dust spots, I will support. Otherwise, I Oppose -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have pretty much zero skills regarding image manipulation. If anyone reading feels like it, it would be nice to have it retouched. ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 00:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even with the dust spots cleaned up, I don't think I feel the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veado-campeiro macho no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 00:20:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Nortondefeis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
still Neutral – looks a bit too reddish for my taste, and unfortunate crop giving more space below than above. Crop suggestion added (to get the animal a bit de-centered as well). --Kreuz schnabel 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can accept unsharp background more readily than unsharp foreground, which really looks unnatural to me. I'll be willing to reconsider if you try Kreuzschnabel's suggested crop, which should get rid of a lot of the unsharp foreground, but I don't guarantee I'll support the result. For now, I will Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Information to @Kreuzschnabel and Ikan Kekek: Cropped. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks! Improved IMHO. Not sure it passes FP threshold for me but certainly got closer to it :-) --Kreuzschnabel 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I agree on both counts but don't feel impelled to change my opposition to neutral. I may reconsider later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A decent deer shot, but overall too red and the deer looks like it needs to calm down a bit after being startled by the photographer. INeverCry 18:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality and lovely --The Photographer (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can accept the warmth of the image as likely an effect of shooting at what was probably evening golden hour (I assume this was in South America somewhere, where that time of day would be around sunset at this time of year). But the background is noisier than I would expect for what is clearly not a long exposure, and given that the metadata tells us more about what software was used than the camera used to create the image I am not willing to !vote without knowing more about what details of this image's creation might explain these things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alasti keiser, Edward von Lõnguse töö Tartus.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 00:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info "The naked emperor", stencil graffiti by Edward von Lõngus. Tartu, Estonia.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The wood is very distracting and adds nothing to the picture, in my opinion. If you crop all of it out completely, I will be happy to reconsider at that time and would probably support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I had the same thought as Ikan at first glance. I would probably support after a crop as well.~~ INeverCry 00:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do prefer the wooden wall to be there and I think it helps to complete the image. Without that it would seem too sterile to me (it's still a graffiti). And with that kind of detail the exact location of the work becomes identifiable even when the work itself would not be there anymore. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The drawing might be funny but we judge the photographic work, which is really nothing extraordinary here. Blueish colours, random composition. --Kreuz schnabel 08:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 19:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm usually a fan of this kind of street art and pics of such should include some of the surroundings just to highlight where the art was done, but after some deliberation I have to concur with Kreuzschnabel. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 08:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Consolata Cemetery 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 23:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Support - Moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support INeverCry 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now that's a wow! w.carter-Talk 00:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Changing my vote to Neutral since I don't know what's going on here. w.carter-Talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my contribution on Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Alteration_of_candidates_through_voting_period --Kreuz schnabel 16:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Foto um pouco velha, mas tá valendo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Per users above. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Blunt, shoddy cutout to get the background blurred (see edge of hair). Sorry but this is so obvious even in the preview! How this got through QI I cannot imagine. I don’t fancy the composition either. Portrait orientation showing more of the statue would have been better. --Kreuzschnabel 08:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I reverted to original version, however, I'm not sure if the cut is ok. Please, let me know if it's ok for you. --The Photographer (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above "shoddy cutout to get the background blurred", a photomontage would produce the same effect Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reverted at 15:37, 17. Jul. 2016. Please do not alter nominated images through voting period without strong reason! This is very bad practice IMHO, compromising any comment/voting given before. Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, w.carter, ArionEstar, please reconsider your voting now. Candidate has been replaced by a very commonplace shot. And please comment on my proposal on the talk page – thx! --Kreuz schnabel 16:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the picture itself, and the going on nomination process.--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the process, but I would also oppose a feature for this picture. I think it's fine to offer alternatives or make edits within reason, but this is too radical an edit to make during the nomination process and should require withdrawal and then renomination of the version you would want considered. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the radical changes to the picture made above, noted in !votes

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Excavator RK 5000 Lom ČSA Czech Republic 2016 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 21:10:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You should nominate this photo for Quality Image, but it doesn't excite me enough to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, the idea is not too bad but the perfomance could be better. No chance on QI either, for the blown clouds. --Kreuz schnabel 08:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others; too busy plus blown clouds in background. Nice idea though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veado-campeiro macho no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra alt.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 03:05:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Nortondefeis - nominated and uploaded by -- The Photographer (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much better than the first nomination, maybe the contrast is a bit too harsh now. --Kreuz schnabel 07:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's tilted. There isn't any perspective distortion. I prefer this crop. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Arion is right, it's tilted --The Photographer (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Eu só queria que você desfizesse a correção de perspectiva. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado Arion, não entanto, foi um trabalho que fiz sem salvar uma versão com a correção de perspectiva somente. Deixa pra lá, depois tento fazer de novo. --The Photographer (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lille Eté2016- La Treille le Retable de N.D.-du-Rosaire.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 16:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Pierre André - uploaded by Pierre André - nominated by Pierre André--Pierre André (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Superbly valuable image, but for FP, I think it clearly falls short because of a lack of sufficient focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient image quality, lack of detail --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination OK! Image without flash, thank you for your advices. --Pierre André (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Flash would have been even worse, causing glare and drop shadows. Use a tripod. --Kreuz schnabel 21:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Usain Bolt 2011-09-04 001.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 13:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Stephane Kempinaire - uploaded by Kaiketsu - nominated by Thuresson -- Thuresson (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thuresson (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Newspaper scan with telltale pixellation at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very bad quality and per Ikan Kekek. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ikan nailed it as usual. w.carter-Talk 16:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have love to have the image without it being 3 times the size of what the camera can produce! The D3S is a 12Mpx camera. Too bad this is a great sport shot ruined by overprocessing! :( --PierreSelim (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of all the objections listed above

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shavlo 100917 0244-Edit.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 10:36:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Altay Mountains / Created by AndreiChugunov - uploaded by AndreiChugunov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful but looks really oversaturated. I'd like to see what the original picture looked like before it was edited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks overprocessed. --Karelj (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What Ikan says. w.carter-Talk 11:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed saturation. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What Commons featured pictures would look like on Instagram (per this and the innumerable BuzzFeed pieces along this theme). Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of everything mentioned above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016 Pałac w Żelaźnie 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 11:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm thinking that maybe if you crop a little from the foreground, the photo will work better compositionally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek:

Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I'd actually crop even more from the foreground, maybe half the distance to the model of the palace on the right. I'll look at this picture again tomorrow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There's something that doesn't wow me about the composition. It's certainly a good picture, and the composition is well-considered, but I don't really have that enjoyable an experience of moving my eyes around the picture frame. And I think the reason I wanted (and still want) more of a crop of the foreground is that until we get to the shrub on the left side and shrubs and models of buildings on the right, there's nothing (except maybe the hedges, but those don't help with a large swath of ground to the left) that helps my eyes move toward the palace except for the road. I think this is a very good QI, but I respectfully dissent from the votes to feature this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perspective brings some dynamics to standard front view. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Reguyla (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Worcester Cathedral, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 11:10:24 (UTC)

The lady chapel of Worcester Cathedral
The nave of Worcester Cathedral
The choir of Worcester Cathedral

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course this is outstanding, fantastic and any other superlative you'd like to write. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 11:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice, but I don't understand the set. Don't we miss one nave ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean. There's only one nave in the cathedral. Or do you mean there are photos taken by myself that are not in this set? If the latter, then yes that's true, there are others that Kasir seems to have excluded, including this one of the nave looking in the opposite direction towards the west window. I actually took 7 photos of the interior of this cathedral so I guess there are 4 missing, but perhaps they are not all featureable. Actually this one is already featured. Diliff (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, sorry, I did not understand well, I thought we had here a lateral nave, and I felt I missed the fourth branch of the cross... I'm not confortable with the progression of the pictures. One of them looks to the opposite side of the others if I'm not wrong, that's not clear for me. I could probably support each of them, but not as this set.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I share the same concerns about the "set". That said, the pictures are impressive as always :). Of course I won't opppose the nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right that the image of the choir shows the view in the opposite direction compared to the nave and lady chapel images. I chose the direction of the camera based on the best view rather than to be a sequential 'tour' through the cathedral, but I can see how you might not see it working well as a set. As for the 'fourth branch of the cross, I'm still a bit confused. Do you mean the crossing, or transepts? This is a typical plan of cathedrals in English and seems to be the same terminology in French. I didn't take a photo of the transepts or crossing but I don't remember why. I suppose perhaps it wasn't inspiring. I don't usually have a methodical approach to choosing my photos. I just use my intuition about what views I like or don't like. Diliff (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benzol (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thane Creek and Elephanta Island 03-2016 - img29 Cannon Hill.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 19:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
Info created and uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is for what it's worth, but see what others say: I like the bull (that's a bull with such big horns, not a cow as stated in the description, right?), but I don't like the bokeh at full size too much. With such a "busy" bokeh at that level of blur, I think a better solution is to smooth it out some more by fading the individual elements, such that we can still perceive the existence of sticks and perhaps hay (I'm willing to sacrifice the individual blades of hay, though), but the scene doesn't make our eyes vibrate, if you get my meaning (not sure how to explain better). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will provisionally Oppose, though I would reconsider if the edits I suggest are made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow, sort of per Ikan. I also don't think the surfeit of earth tones did much for the white balance. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak oppose per Ikan. Bokeh does not at all please the eye. Contrast a bit too harsh. --Kreuz schnabel 07:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 18:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Follen McKim by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 21:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

#10wikicommonsdays Day 2

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If this were a new photo, I'd criticize it for noise, among other things, but as a historical photo, I think it's good and featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Reguyla (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Haapsalu Maarja õigeusu kirik.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 18:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Iifar - uploaded by Iifar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting angle. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, and the clouds really help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect—there is distortion at the edges, which seems to be an aftereffect of perspective correction, and it looks like there might have been a GND filter in the mix, too—but those are tradeoffs that had to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some kind of distortion visible, but nevertheless very good and sharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --w.carter-Talk 11:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sky colours looks weird (or HDRly overprocessed). --PierreSelim (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ibrahim Pasha Mosque, Razgrad.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 20:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 20:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well-composed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Especially the minaret looks distorted. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't feel wowed but I do agree that the composition is quite good. The pile of dirt on the right side bothers me somewhat, but hey, it was there, so it's in the picture. I've changed to opposing, though, because if this building is supposed to have straight walls at right angles, that's not what I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, surprisingly. Quite good but no wow but an FP needs wow to rise above a QI (see guidelines). Then, I don’t really like the washed-out colours (still, I’ve never been there, maybe it really looks that way) and the perspective distortion on the minaret either. --Kreuz schnabel 08:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I know about the guidelines, but sometimes, I make a bit of an allowance for liking a picture and just for some reason not feeling a wow. I won't make a really strong argument for this picture, though. By the way, there's another picture below that I so far can't decide whether to oppose on the basis of no wow, or possibly to support. I don't feel that "no wow" is a persuasive argument per se, though I sometimes fall back on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I addressed the other photo below with a more detailed argument than "no wow" and have on reflection changed my vote on this picture to oppose because I don't believe it's likely that a 17th-century mosque really looks like that. In other words, Spurzem's argument seems meritorious to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose To my eye the whole thing looks distorted almost bloated, but it also appears to be disused with plants growing on it and such, so maybe it has just settled that way. That said it does not wow me. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 11:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, just a little too busy. I could see what the photographer was thinking but unfortunately it didn't come through. Agree that it's a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. INeverCry 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roleček 14:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lilium kesselringianum in Sochi.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 21:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by KSK - uploaded by KSK - nominated by SKas -- KSK (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful at full resolution --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --w.carter-Talk 11:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Volva habei 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 16:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's beautiful at full-page size, but as a personal preference, I'd like a bit more sharpness at full size. It's nothing drastic, though, and I won't oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, as usual. The sharpness is actually much better than I would expect from a photo of something that contains pearls or mother of pearl. The substance is devilishly hard to get a focus on (I know!!) since the microscopic aragonite chrystals in the surface throws the camera's sensors all over the place. w.carter-Talk 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment --Llez (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! --Benzol (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laguna Honda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 34.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 12:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Laguna Honda (in English "Deep Lagoon") is a salt lake located at 4,114 metres (13,497 ft) over the sea level in the bolivian Potosí Department, close to the border with Chile. All by me, Poc o² 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - More South American beauty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan Kekek. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --w.carter-Talk 14:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deep blue sky understandable given the altitude. Makes a lovely contrast with the barren ground and its earth tones. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request a geotag will be fine and useful ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and geotag please. -- -donald- (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added Poc o² 06:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice! (I'd prefer 16:9 format for this kind of pictures, still it's great) --PierreSelim (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --El Grafo (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP JukoFF (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benzol (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lunar Rainbow at Victoria Falls HP L2778e2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 09:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena
Info all by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What an unusual phenomenon! I've never seen a lunar rainbow! But do you think you could reduce the noise at full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I tested it with more bad results. It is a long exposure night 10s ISO 3200 shoot! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose It is a very unusual thing to see and I would have been inclined to support it on that fact alone, but checking the Category:Moonbows it seems like it is possible to get pics with more light of moonbows from that location. Perhaps you need to be there at full moon at a time of the year when there is some residual blue in the sky even during night. This is one of the darkest pics in that category. For what it's worth, this pic looks better in larger format. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 17:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was at full moon and in the night. ;-) The other cat images are also visible with a part of sunlight!?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was the residual light I was referring to. I know that full night pics are very, very hard to get visible. You sometimes have to have such long exposure that the stars become short lines, about a minute or so. w.carter-Talk 18:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wanted to take an image only by moonlight with one of the best cameras for that. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and noisy. INeverCry 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Night rainbow....--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry is right - but so is Livio --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Noisy... (even with the NR which smeared details, and Canon is definitely not one of the best camera for such pictures, look at the color blotches) and questionnable composition. But interesting phenomenon. - Benh (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral changed my mind after looking at Category:Moonbows. It's underexposed in my opinion, even for a night shot. - Benh (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support yet, there is noise but its ok for FP. --Ralf Roleček 14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rarity of phenomenon depicted overcomes technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Benzol (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 20:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Sant'Antonio da Padova all'Esquilino - Interior.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 22:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dusk image. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 23:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what you mean for "dusk image"?--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the muted light. The mural at the back looks properly lit. INeverCry 01:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually find that fresco a bit too bright, particularly at full size, but overall, the room looks quite good and I think this is a successful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the composition. There's too much floor and not enough space at the top. Then the benches in the foreground are too dark, they look nearly black. I also notice some pincushion distortion. The floor doesn't look straight but is leaning out on both sides (and so does the top part of the picture). A good QI but not one of our finest church interiors, I think. --Code (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Code, especially about the composition. I need more "up" and less "down".--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the distortions,however this church is famous for the ground and more the up is only white....thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support good true light, nice true view! I'm feeling the interior from the church. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little dim but that in this case means that everything appears more realistic, with minimal post-processing visible. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's good, but I'm not convinced it's one the finest church interior images we have. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very distorted image, especially at the right side. The altar is not sharp, and weird shadows are present. Capture One is the best fixer for that. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what picture you see --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Benzol (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Little wow. - Benh (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAESAR firing in Afghanistan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 15:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Teddy Wade, U.S. Army - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC) I think this one would be better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. w.carter-Talk 10:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not enough room at top. INeverCry 18:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per/INeverCry JukoFF (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately for the pic, they were shooting a little high that day. w.carter-Talk 20:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boommm. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little grainy, and besides I'm not really wowed. It would have to have about the same effect on me that the weapon would have on the enemy. And still leave me in one piece. Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 05:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the overly close crop on top and other reasons noted above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Excavator KU 800 Lom ČSA Czech Republic 2016 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2016 at 20:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's really cool piece of machinery and I can understand why you want to show it. Unfortunately there are CA on stones and wires, everything is tilted and the clouds are blown out. If you take a picture like this and wonder if it is good enough for FP, I suggest that you first nominate it for Commons:Quality images candidates to get it reviewed. That way you will get advice and can correct things before you nominate it here. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of overall quality issues as mentioned above, plus perspective distortion and blown clouds. Sorry.

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eight windows wrapped in plastic.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 18:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- w.carter-Talk 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- w.carter-Talk 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this photo. It's not an extremely complicated motif, but it is fun to look at and strikes me as having some of the experimental spirit of early periods of photography, exploring the power of the medium to observe objects and the way light shines through them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support great, thanks! Absolutely per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The brightness at top left is my one small quibble, but I like this overall. A creative idea that works 95% for me. INeverCry 06:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I totally understand your point since I also fought with the decision on whether I should keep the very bright left or tone it down or crop it out. In the end I decided to keep it since the frames form a sort of "color sample gradient" and those usually go from absolute white to the darkest of the color. w.carter-Talk 07:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support We might be looking at the next MS Windows default wallpaper ;) - Benh (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!! It would be appropriate for Windows 8... w.carter-Talk 09:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe wrapping spoils it for me. If there were just 8 windows getting greener without any distracting element, that would be nicer. Less is more here. --Kreuz schnabel 13:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was to support with enthousiasm, but I notice that the extreme left vertical up line is overexposed or blown up. No details are visible. Maybe a crop would help ? Anyway, something "fresh" here !--Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my comment above to INC, I have been debating this thing with myself. I did a version (not uploaded) with that toned down where details are visible. Still not 100% sure what to do... w.carter-Talk 18:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dilly-dallying done. I made a very bold move, given the discussion going on at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates about altering a pic during nomination. Hope this is still ok, or should I 'ping' everybody? The little troublesome white part is now toned down just enough so that details begin to show, at least at full size. Thank you Jebulon for kicking my butt sufficiently to make this alteration. :) w.carter-Talk 19:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a very subtle difference to my eyes. It couldn't hurt to ping, of course, but I wonder whether it would make the difference between a supporting and an opposing vote for anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel a bit stupid: I did not read the discussion with INC before writing my own comment...But well, I see that we were at least three (including you), with the same idea, so we are not wrong ! About the change during the nomination: I agree with Ikan Kekek. A) the change is minor, B) it results of a debate, C) it is an obvious improvement, D) and I thik it would/should not change any vote. All is correct for me. Let's feel a real and free minded enthousiasm for this picture. I think the wrapping adds in composition, by the way !--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Je vous embrasse, monsieur! I also think the wrapping adds to it, sort of like "speed-blur" on an otherwise rather large and just green area as the windows swoosh through space. w.carter-Talk 21:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ali Zifan 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely textures and shades. Glad to see this very different image here ... I had intended to be the one to promote it to QI but was prevented from doing so by an edit conflict. At that time I suspected we'd see more of it ... obviously I was right. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea --Llez (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 20:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The question in this case is why you oppose. A reason is generally given. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not see here anything so exceptional for PF nomination. --Karelj (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Nikola Tesla, with his equipment EDIT.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 16:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Dickenson V. Alley - restored, uploaded and nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the restored version of File:Nikola Tesla, with his equipment Wellcome M0014782.jpg

Support -- Lošmi (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a still from Frankenstein. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG SUPPORT reminds me The Big Bang Theory [3] and [4]. One of the geniuses who ever lived and little appreciated (not Edison). Hovewer a Big WOW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support, but did you do anything to the picture other than removing the text (which I'd rather were still in the photo, as it's nice to see his handwriting and its placement doesn't come close to seriously damaging the photo) and decreasing the whitening of the surrounding area? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing except the area with text. If you like, add an alternative nomination with the original image. --Lošmi (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No-one has yet addressed the question of whether someone can offer an alternative while they have two active nominations of other pictures, so I don't know whether I am allowed to offer an alternative or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for historical reasons, Tesla was a cool guy. w.carter-Talk 07:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elon Musks favourite. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Benzol (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Bombus lucorum queen - Echium vulgare - Keila.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2016 at 07:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info White-tailed bumblebee (Bombus lucorum) queen on the blueweed (Echium vulgare). All by Ivar (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good but not superb picture of the bee, considering that this is FPC (dorsal areas of the wings and abdomen are blurred), and my reaction to the composition overall is that it's cluttered and not really pleasant to move the eye around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the light does not work for me. It looks too much like "flash-light", hard and flat, even if I can't say if a flash has been used or not. w.carter-Talk 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose – fine shot generally but I don’t approve of the harsh lighting (flashlight I suppose from the glare on the bees head). And the disturbing tick could have been removed previously ;-) --Kreuz schnabel 14:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clouds in Siuslaw National Forest.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2016 at 14:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Tom Hamilton nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, even if it is a pretty picture, it looks overprocessed, it is grainy, there are lots of CA especially in the trees and the horizon looks tilted even if I can't say if it actually is. w.carter-Talk 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fantastic mood however though some fixable defects (CAs, dustspots) there are too much not fixable quality issues (unsharp, blurred at left) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair points. Please consider this one withdrawn. Natuur12 (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just add a {{withdraw}} --~~~~ line, then no consideration is required. --Kreuzschnabel 19:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh of course. Thanks. Natuur12 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Natuur12 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bologna Panorama.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 10:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very interesting and unusual panorama with all the swallows and the two worringly leaning towers, but the big dark dominating church on the left spoils it for me. The horizon is also slightly curved, but that may be hills and such. w.carter-Talk 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W.carter. INeverCry 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W.carter. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --User:Ввласенко Ввласенко (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:A small boy tries to look mean for the camera in Afghanistan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 19:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People #Standing people
Info created by Fred W. Baker III - uploaded by Slick-o-bot - nominated by Reguyla -- Reguyla (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Reguyla (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I haven't figured out whether or how to vote on this, but what it is about this photo that makes you consider it featurable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek When I saw the picture the intense look on the kids face along with the clarity of the image struck me and made me think it would be a good candidate for FP. Reguyla (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, and after looking at the photo again, I think you're right. The photo is rather memorable. I also can't understand using the idea of the photo being good for Time or Life as a reason to oppose a feature. I

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the idea but I wonder if perhaps the boy's expression is him registering his displeasure with being cropped so tightly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may be a pic for Time or ye olde LIFE magazine, but it has nothing FP for me. w.carter-Talk 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it's good enough for ol' LIFE, then it's good enough for me. And FPC ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice quality, pretty sharp, and powerful eyes, 3x2 is weird uh, I would crop tighter, and vertical, or a square, square would work here... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Cropped to 1x1 and contrast increased. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose the alt version. I disagree that a square picture works best in this case. It feels cramped, and I simply prefer the original composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, no, no, no. Alt version: "... it doesn't work this way, too." w.carter-Talk 13:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote used by those nerds who love that movie too. :) Just a small innocent addition in case there are some of them here. I know that there are many movie enthusiasts at Commons. It's nothing important. w.carter-Talk 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agra 03-2016 14 Agra Fort.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 19:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created and uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Somewhat unsharp on the sides, but I trust that's a compromise that needed to be made, and it's OK with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very calm and relaxing to look at. I would probably have cloned out that green soda bottle though. w.carter-Talk 21:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry and detail. White balance is a little warm, but it looks like it was a hot day. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 05:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral One small green bottle spoiling an entire composition which is fine otherwise. --Kreuz schnabel 07:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice perspective and all, but... not centered :D - Benh (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info @W.carter and Kreuzschnabel: bottle removed. Feel free to revert if it's not fine to you. - Benh (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. :) w.carter-Talk 10:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Росочка Река 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 14:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect long exposure. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and use of long exposure. - Benh (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A geotag would be nice though, please. --w.carter-Talk 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've added geographic coordinates.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It wouldn't surprise me if this is in the Picture of the Year finals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ideal for the wall of a psychiatric practice's waiting room, or the print ad for the anti-anxiety drug you get prescribed after the visit. So ... calming ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is excellence. --Kreuz schnabel 07:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabulous image. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 05:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agapanthus 'White Heaven', ingetogen schoonheid van de ontluikende bloemknop. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 16:33:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Agapanthaceae.
Info Agapanthus 'White Heaven', understated beauty of budding flower bud. Location, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal good quality image, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much more than normal good quality to me. That plant is beautiful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely shades of green, subtly deployed. I would have cropped tighter, but I defer to the photographer's choice here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand Karelj...hovewer and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and sharp. However, I do not like the crop, as the right half of the image is empty. If possible, you should move the bloom to the right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think having the stem starting at the corner adds to the pic. It is just budding and just "comming in from the left" as if it is a bit shy. Yes I know, poetic nonsense to most, but we are allowed to be subjective here, that is what beauty is all about. w.carter-Talk 12:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support but per Uoaei1 --Llez (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: The photo I obviously can crop so that the bud is right in the middle. Personally, I find it so playful and in my opinion the proportions. But the review is to you all.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:CRS-9 mission (28348649546).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 14:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by MsaynevirtaIMG - nominated by Ras67 -- Ras67 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wow for the new technical possibilities, also high educational value. Ras67 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This pic has everything I don't want in a FP. It is too small, too grainy, not sharp enough, everything is tilted and the lights are posterized. Even so, I will Support it since it is a very unusual image of one of the first, major, successful start and first-stage landing captured in the same image. That is wow enough for me. w.carter-Talk 20:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - W.carter's points are well taken, but I think either some more background information or a link to a page that specifically explains the mission would be needed for the picture to have sufficient informative value for me to feel that a feature is justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links now provided at the file's page + an artist's rendition as "other version". The whole thing happened today. Thanks for noticing Ikan. w.carter-Talk 21:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I now Support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for historic importance. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an incredible long exposure shot in itself, with a very impressive wide view. But what it shows is even more remarkable. All in a single, non composited, 9min shot, which really helps understanding the process. - Benh (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too out of focus. Picture has definitely some educational value, but IMO the File:ORBCOMM-2 (23815832891).jpg (similar picture from December's Orbcomm flight) is a better candidate for FP. --Msaynevirta (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Cabeças de águia do Parque Estadual do Guartelá.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 22:43:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Chostakovis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a pretty amazing sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blue seems a little overdone, but otherwise I'm OK with it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP. JukoFF (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 02:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:International Commerce Centre on Victoria Harbour.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 22:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info International Commerce Centre on Victoria Harbour -- The Photographer (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow for me Ezarateesteban 23:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture, but I'm sorry, the right crop that cuts off a building sucks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's really no good place to crop in that view, and that one isn't particularly noticeable. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Papilio machaon Mitterbach 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 16:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
Info Old World swallowtail (Papilio machaon) near Mitterbach am Erlaufsee, Lower Austria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. Really good capture of this beautiful butterfly, with the great majority of it in focus. Pleasant background, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hihi, I get to play with this nice pic twice! :) w.carter-Talk 17:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors and tones! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support colors, tones, texture, sharpness, bokeh! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 05:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A masterpiece indeed! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Regulation of gene expression.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 21:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Ali Zifan. It also passed under the W3C validator without any errors and warnings. Ali Zifan 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ali Zifan 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's oversimplification. Getting through the membrane isn't that simple and protein hormones (like insulin) just connect to membrane proteins, that then pass on the signal with a cascadal process via mediator molecules. Ok, steroid hormones do enter the cell (not that there is any reference that this is the case with this drawing), but just binding to the receptor and then entering to the nucleus without anything happening to the receptor should be rather uncommon (like why should it float in the cytoplasm and then miraculously decide to enter the nucleus if nothing hasn't changed? there should be at least some conformational change in the receptor). And often there are some co-regulators. And then there is amplification, that is totally taken out from the equation in here. P.S: It might be more practical to base your diagram on some specific gene regulation example. You can do the drawing, but I'm not convinced on the scientific backstory. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This diagram actually shows regulation of gene expression by steroid hormone receptor. Hormones that are fat soluble (like steroid) are able to pass through the cell membrane directly and produce their effect by binding to receptors inside the cell. So as you mentioned, and I thank you for that, every regulation of genes won't be the same, and this diagram exclusively display gene expression by steroid hormones. Since Steroid hormone receptors directly regulate gene expression, they would enter the nucleus and it doesn't mean that it will be done "miraculously". I also change the description of the file and requested to rename a file to "Regulation of gene expression by steroid hormone receptor". Ali Zifan 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you! Kruusamägi (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I mentioned before, then there are other issues beside the type of hormone depicted. So naturally I'm not going to change my vote (as if it would had been only that, I would just have suggested to add that "steroid" part into it). And with that "miraculously" I meant that ligand binding usually induces a conformational change in a receptor protein (i.e. there is a reason why it enters the nucleus after binding the hormone). I can't see that in your image. There is just this weird dark hole that is filled. And then again, all of this could be told in an image description and not on the image itself, but there isn't much of a description at a moment.

So, I would definitely wish for a better image description, as at a moment there is more text on the diagram, than on the descriptional part of it. And I'm not fully sure about the used terms as well ("extraocular fluid"(?); and I'd prefer "cell membrane"; and why don't you mention the ribosomes). I don't mind the simplified depiction itself, but without a good textual part to back it up, then it just ain't enough. It is still an encyclopedia. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. It is an exellently executed image, with the requisite option for several languages, but even the two paragraphs of bio-speak above gives me a headache... As soon as someone with more knowledge than I assures me that the science behind it is right, I'll change my vote to support. w.carter-Talk 13:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support If Daniel says so. ;) BTW, I like the purple, it makes the pic pop. Wish I'd had illustrations like this on my school books. w.carter-Talk 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator's explanation above; it sounds good enough for me. However, I do think a better color could be chosen than that strong purple, which I see as kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you exactly voting for? Just if the image is pretty or not? As an university student in the field of genetic engineering, this image is a clear no go for me due to the inaccuracies it has. And this nominator's explanation just says that yeah, I had no clue that there are also peptide hormones and I have now updated the image description. How does that "sound good enough"? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you even mean?! if it was wrong and inaccurate I would definitely withdraw with my nomination; I promise! As I said ,and will say again, this diagram just shows the general steps and basic process of gene expression regulation by steroid hormone receptor. It does not mean that it must depict every single thing going on in the process, because that is not the goal. If those steps were critical to show it would definitely be added. You've already give your opposition and thoughts in here and I don't really know why you are insisting to mislead others about it. Ali Zifan 23:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, lets start from the top. What a hack is "extraocular fluid"? Did you meant "extracellular fluid"? Kruusamägi (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - Thanks for pointing that out. Until that's corrected or explained, I will oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Fixed. Ali Zifan 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, do you see now, why I'm so reluctant to support this?

And if you are already making changes, then please change "hormone" to "steroid hormone" and add marking for "ribosomes". Kruusamägi (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me! – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winter Palace Panorama 4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 05:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Florstein - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this composition very restful and pleasant for the eyes, and the Winter Palace is a lovely building. Surprisingly, there is as yet no Featured Picture of this palace. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colours look severely oversaturated for me, especially the blue water and the red things in front of the building. Unbalanced composition with an adjacent building to the left and none to the right, a bit more slanted perspective from the right could compensate for that. --Kreuz schnabel 07:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel; it also looks to me like it might be slightly tilted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't notice. Florstein, if you notice anything, feel free to edit with notice to everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I'm sure that the picture is not tilted, but the embankment sagged a bit in the center. And no, I can't build a building in the right side to make symmetrical composition. :) And no - we need strictly frontal view for this building. --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is OK for me --Llez (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About stitching errors. Alas, stitch a running water without errors at all is almost impossible, I bet you know. However, these smallest flaws are hardly visible and attempts to clone up the seams may equally affect the quality. This is a very big niggle, I guess. --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KSK (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 02:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GSI Mariner beached on banks of the Mackenzie River, Inuvik, NT.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 15:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been inspired by some of the recent successful nominations of shipwrecks to nominate this one. More a beached ship than a wrecked one, though. -- Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hehe! :) Now this is right up my alley, so pardon me for being a bit picky Daniel. It needs a bit of perspective adjustment. The walls of the crew cabins right below the pilothouse as well as those of the aft cabin under the railing, should be just as straight as those of a house. Right now they are leaning a bit into center. The antennae are probably tilted IRL due to wind activity. Swab up the ~~deck~~ pic, ye landlubber! w.carter-Talk 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done At least to the extent that I could without cutting off the top of the mast. I hope that's enough of a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good enough. Lucky it was red boat since it makes a good contrast + complementary color with the foliage. w.carter-Talk 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fail to see anything outstanding in this photograph. The bush on the left foreground spoils the composition entirely. --Kreuz schnabel 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me is outstanding ,funny and very curios --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cool picture. I like the bush on the left, which I find good for the composition. A bit of the foreground is somewhat unsharp, but in the entire context, complaining about that feels like nitpicking to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A different take on the usual fare of shipwrecks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No FP/ JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No FP? JukoFF can you explain your vote? Normally here the people talk. Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see in the picture is nothing outstanding. This is not the Titanic :) JukoFF (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Daniel Case: I bet this'd be a cool place to live if you fixed it up right. INeverCry 18:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be the only realistic way to use it. I thought its registration would have run out by now, but according to Transport Canada, it was renewed for another three years. So who knows? Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really like this one! Love the atmosphere. Shadows seem a bit overbrightened, but it's not objectionable. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gymnocephalus cernuus Pärnu River Estonia 2010-01-06.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2016 at 13:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created and uploaded by Tiit Hunt - nominated by Kruusamägi
Info Eurasian ruffe in Pärnu River in Estonia. This is a renomination.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - On balance, yes, I think this merits a feature. Pretty fish, very nice picture as a whole at full-page size, and it's fun to look at the fish at full size. Overall, I like the clarity of the picture, too. I don't even feel inclined to suggest cropping closer on top, because I like the background and it's clear enough to give a depth of field. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 19:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice that some of the iridescence on the fish was captured. w.carter-Talk 20:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Earth tones work really well here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very difficult subject to shoot. I wish the POV was a little bit lower, but given the circumstances this is an excellent shot, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reynisfjara and Reynisdrangar, Iceland.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 06:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The beach of Reynisfjara and Reynisdrangar, basalt sea stacks, as seen from Dyrhólaey, Iceland; all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's beautiful and quite pleasant to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'll have to sit this one out. It's a nice pic no doubt with the curve and all, but for an Icelandic landscape it is a bit bland. w.carter-Talk 07:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what it's worth, the word I'd use is "subtle". This isn't an immediate "WOW!" Instead, I found that in looking at it longer, I really enjoyed the subtle gradations of texture and color and the forms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. Does for cool colors what Poco's Andean landscapes do for earth tones. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 14:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image, perhaps some noise in the clouds.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition except the slope in front in this case, miss the shoreline. --Laitche (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 02:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Проводящий пучок Pteridium aquilinum.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 21:39:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Amphycribral Vascular Bundle of a Fern Rhizome - Pteridium aquilinum / Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - uploaded by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attenuated Support as striking. The top crop is regrettable as it cuts off the endoderm ring. I also think that the parenchyma and phloem cells should be identified, presumably by color, so that viewers know what they're looking at. Preferably, every type of visible cell should be identified, for optimal educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will be very grateful to you if you do this. JukoFF (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the knowledge to identify each type of cell by appearance! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when nature meets art. The top crop is unfortunate though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Martin says. --w.carter-Talk 11:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the unfortunate top crop I really love it! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 16:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Groovy! Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 05:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants