Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2019

File:Albizia saman trunk leaning over the water on a Mekong bank in sunshine at golden hour (2).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2019 at 20:18:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Fabales
Info created & uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Tomer. I like the composition and the golden light of this image. Taken from a pirogue -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice evening sun. --Hockei (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 06:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chiesa di San Francesco d'Assisi affresco giottesco Brescia.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2019 at 19:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Valuable document, well done. I edited the English description. I would request for you to describe the subject matter of both frescoes in the Italian description, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm a bit skeptical about the cold colours. And I don't find it any special, photography-wise. Do they have to be shown together? Any connection between them? - Benh (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other than that they're presumably painted by the same person/people in the same style as part of the same commission and one is on top of the other? I don't know how familiar you are with the conventions of Gothic painting, but it's absolutely normal for different scenes to be part even of the same painting. Using post-Gothic standards of compositional unity for Gothic painting is anachronistic. To be sure, each scene should have compositional unity within itself, but that's very often the limit in this style. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The paintings have been detached recently from the wall in order to preserve them better. The people on top of the 700 years old painting are described as monks and laymen or monks and students but nobody exactly knows who they were --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe not special photography-wise, but good artwork well captured. FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coast with Dome Hotel, Kyrenia, Northern Cyprus 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 05:06:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Weather/Storms
Info created & uploaded by User:Podzemnik - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this picture of Kyrenia, Northern Cyprus is as remarkable as, if not more remarkable than Podzemnik's photos of places in New Zealand under dramatic skies. The combination of the coastal mountains looking almost snow-covered in the crepuscular rays and the weird juxtaposition of the buildings including the odd Anchor Restaurant building with the power of Nature is quite striking. Combine that with a fine composition, and I think you have an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination Ikan! One of my favourite pictures from Northern Cyprus. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I hope others like it as much as we do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 00:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super image, agree with everything said in the nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to be the party pooper. Crepuscular rays, like sunsets, are pretty but also pretty common. Apart from them, this is just a fairly ugly modern tourist resort in bad light. I don't think the handling/processing of the bright/dark scene is an example of our (and your) best. -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, but the cityscape is not outstanding worth seen. --Milseburg (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poc o² 12:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden and NTT DoCoMo Yoyogi Building, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 04:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Nice juxtaposition, but do you have any version with all or more of the tree on the right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Ikan Kekek, better? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oddly, I might like the previous version better. I'll live with this photo for a while and see how it develops for me, so to speak. I'll be interested to see how others react, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More of the tree -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. This one respects more or less the rule of thirds -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dinkum (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the tree at the right bothers me and I don't think there is a crop that works with the particular spot you chose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm afraid I agree with KoH, though I love the idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was the grass really that pale, or is it the polarizer's fault? An interestingly weird look. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this filter was to capture the colors, but perhaps still not enough compared to the eyes. Weird contrast nature / urbanscape, I agree. Thanks for your support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Togetsu-kyo bridge at dusk, Kyoto, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 01:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm feeling disappointed by the subdued colors, by comparison with more dramatic dusks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the mood and the composition. Something like this -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I didn't vote for that photo. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A bit lacking in wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me! Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the subdued colours, it can get a bit boring to see this kind of pic under bright blue skies or sunset colours. Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not really different from other bridges, but I agree with Cmao--Booth sift 04:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral From a second look, I only think it's too ordinary--Booth sift 05:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, I do not see reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I still feel disappointed that this view is so understated, rather than more colorful and dramatic, but I credit you with the peaceful mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kokardenblume Gaillardia aristata stack28 20190721-RM-7210879.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 05:21:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)
Info created by and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but there’s room for stacking improvement. --Ivar (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I thought about this one as a possible FP when I saw it earlier.--Peulle (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination. I will try to improve it.--Ermell (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~A bit noisy background though.~~ -- fixed --Hockei (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Over-sharpening filter is generating noise on background. I will change my vote if its fixed --Wilfredor (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)~~ Well done, good now --Wilfredor (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: We have a problem --Booth sift 05:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: @Hockei: @Wilfredor: Done. Thanks for your support.--Ermell (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great piece of work. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it's so unsharp with such dull colors. /s :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)

File:Northern Gannet with nest material.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2019 at 18:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order:Suliformes>
Info created by hobbyfotowiki - uploaded by hobbyfotowiki - nominated by Hobbyfotowiki -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine with me --Ivar (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like this image... lots of wow --GRDN711 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great action shot, good focus, interesting posture, nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM. Masum Reza^📞 01:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The thumbnail definitely made me stop and take notice. Support per GRDN711 and Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture! Cmao20 (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful shot --Schnobby (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Hockei (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely FP, though I would clone out the grey spot at the right. --A.Savin 14:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 19:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow - Benh (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit soft and background distracting, a very common bird --Wilfredor (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 02:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Velden Seecorso 10 Schlosshotel W-Ansicht 24102019 7291.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 12:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WOW. Impressive colors and lighting. Seven Pandas (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but upper crop is a bit tight. --Ivar (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 16:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but I miss one of the tower tips, it was cut off, can you fix that? Poc o² 17:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional Oppose per Poco.~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course--Booth sift 01:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the building is cut on top, and i preffer see the entire building --Wilfredor (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Iifar: @Poco a poco: @Ikan Kekek: @Wilfredor: I fixed the objection of yours the best possible way. —- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks now fine to me, can you please also remove the dust spots? there are at least 2 (I added notes), maybe more Poc o² 18:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Poco a poco: Thanks for your further comment. I removed those two dust spots you found. —- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks Support Poc o² 12:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still close-cropped on top, but sufficient at least for me to remove my opposition. I'd like to support this photo because it's pretty, but I'd feel more relaxed with a little room on top. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isha Khan Niyazi's tomb - Delhi 297 HT.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2019 at 18:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Dhatul - uploaded by Dhatul - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 18:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 18:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very small file.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2019 (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: resolution is lower than 2 megapixels. --Ivar (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:L. Poulmaire, Nouveau Paris monumental - National Library of Australia.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 17:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by L. Poulmaire - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I must oppose this because it is not just restored but considerably lightened and contrast-enhanced vs the original. I would like to know what changes were made. I think you are trying to compensate for the yellowing of the linen sheet but you have also made the other colours (pink, blue, green, brown) much lighter too. I am not convinced that all colours would darken (some may even have faded and be more vivid in the original). Perhaps we should stick to removing obvious blemishes rather than trying to emulate what you think it might have looked like when new.

Also, Paris 16, I think best practice for restoration is that you first upload the original as either TIFF or PNG (I've done this now here). Then you should upload your restored version as TIFF or PNG so that others may make derivative works without suffering from lossy compression issues. Then upload a JPG for others to easily use, preferably with modest compression to help folk download large files. I uploaded the original as a JPG here with Photoshop compression 11 that is about 60% the size of your JPG. I suspect yours was saved at compression 12 (minimal compression), generally considered overkill and wasteful as it is visually indistinguishable from level 11. I've added {{Retouched}} template to your JPG and I think you should add details of what changes you made to the template parameter. I don't think it is educationally honest for us to present files like you did and claim the source is the National Library of Australia when in fact the image here is not same (I have appended a note to the Source entry on your JPG's page). We are fundamentally an educational media repository, so I think these aspects are essential for all our work, and required at FP. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Colin! But I can't upload the original TIFF file. It's always "not verified".--Paris 16 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same error with the TIFF. Wondered if it was just because it took so long (or my PC was busy). Since it was only 8-bit TIFF, I saved it as PNG, which was smaller so I uploaded that instead. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose product of the clearance some areas have disappeared or lost contrast --Wilfredor (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:MuseReading270817-63.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 18:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brian Johnson and Matthew Bellamy of Muse durring Reading Festival 2017.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Raph_PH - uploaded by Sjoerddebruin - nominated by JTs -- JTs (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JTs (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, doesn't wow me. Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea, quality is more than acceptable for a night venue shot, motif is a-ok. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring comp, search up any rock and roll concert photo and there's at least a dozen like this--Booth sift 23:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Boothsift, but this is NOT regular "rock and roll concert photo". That was notable event and this picture is more valuable that dozen pictures of nature here. --JTs (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JTs: Notable event, boring non-notable picture. I wouldn't even support this if this was the first rock concert on Mars--Booth sift 23:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the most valuable image of this event, nominate it for Valued Image. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like your attempt but agree with Percival Kestreltail. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift. At the very least it could have been cropped in on both sides ... there's not a lot that dark space adds to the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isa Khan's Tomb as seen from the entrance.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2019 at 18:48:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Hrawat8 - uploaded by Hrawat8 - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Photo seems overworked.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed. --Ivar (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar. The quality is not the best. --Podzemnik (

talk) 20:48, 31 October 2019 (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: image quality far below FP standards --Kreuz schnabel 21:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.07.18.-01-Ahrensdorf Rietz-Neuendorf--Sonnenblumenfeld.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2019 at 16:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see all those sumflowers --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Michielverbeek: The sunflowers are really nice, aren't they? --Booth sift 22:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't want to sound too harsh, but this is far from a novel idea. We already have very similar FPs, and this isn't the best of them IMO. It's not even very sharp despite the very friendly conditions. - Benh (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh but less harsh... Good image, certainly QI but not FP for me. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. The powerlines don't do the picture good either. --A.Savin 14:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The WB is also not optimal for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh midday light with not so good sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea in the first place. But white balance is a bit off, looking too blueish to me – this is the kind of yellow. Poor quality in the distance, maybe due to heat haze, but DoF is too shallow as well. The clouds have a strange purple tone. --Kreuz schnabel 15:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. There are a lot of sunflower-field photos on Commons, and although this one is nice, I agree that it's not especially sharp and there isn't very much special in terms of composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Hockei (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chehel Sotoun ceiling.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 17:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 17:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ barrel distorsion ? Anyways, boring ceiling IMO. - Benh (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral better crop - Benh (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ for now, interesting ceiling for me but I do wonder whether Benh is right about the barrel distortion. Cmao20 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the author's explanation. Cmao20 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support This is a lot more interesting than a lot of the other ceiling photos here, but it does seem distorted. Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very unboring ceiling! I'm not seeing the distortion. Please point out what I should be looking for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Distortion is in the ceiling and is'nt concern to photography. i can send raw file if you want--Amirpashaei (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support per the author's note that it's a wonky old ceiling and not due to the camera/lens. It's an interesting and unusual ceiling. --Cart (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, I do not see reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The walls at left and right are visually a bit disturbing IMO. A crop would help. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info You're right Christian Ferrer. I removed sides and improved light and texture in a new version. this ceiling is about 400 years ago--Amirpashaei (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped version. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That edit really improved the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Benh: I guess it is a bit less boring now, isn't it? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; we've had better ceiling images, many of them in fact. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Poc o² 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Convicts Lunatics and Women! Have No Vote for Parliament, ca. 1907-1918.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 05:36:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Posters and advertisements
Info created by Emily Jane Harding Andrews - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should probably note that the "Lunatic" depiction is very... problematic. It's one of those things where I think it's good not to whitewash the past, but should use this image wisely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the clever use of the words "She. It". Typography and satire all in the same package, very efficient. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disappoint you Peulle, but in those days the full stop was how dialogue was written, the same way we now write it with a colon and often quotation marks: She: "It..." You shouldn't try to read in present-days ways of doing satire into the words of old texts. --Cart (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I still think it's funny. :D --Peulle (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in your mind there exists a possibility of referring to a woman as "it". Interesting, I've never encountered that before. That would be the only way the so-called pun would work. --Cart (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? --Peulle (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 06:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Printed#Posters and advertisements

File:Epipactis palustris var. ochroleuca - Niitvälja2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 17:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by Ivar (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Yellowish. What makes this strange appearance? as if it was shot through a yellow plastic film, or as if the photo was an old print damaged by the sun -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The quality is very good but the aspect with the background color not very aesthetic. Thanks for the explanation below -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems a bit too yellow--Booth sift 04:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the explanation--Booth sift 05:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Basile Morin: , @Boothsift: the flower itself is yellowish-greenish-white (rare variety of this species), background is yellowish because it contains last years dead vegetation. --Ivar (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support They look evil, as if they have fangs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vamps (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 18:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oops, missed this. Seems good for FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poc o² 18:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales

File:Mrs. Crystal Eastman Benedict by Edmonston, Washington, D.C..jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 05:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Edmonston, Washington, D.C. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent portrait. She comes across as a woman with a lot of personality and substance, and also sensual. In fact, she reminds me a bit of my mother. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that tunic ... very GoT. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smailholm Tower 001.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 16:32:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United_Kingdom
Info created and uploaded by Keith Proven - nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent one --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Unless I'm wrong there's a bit of vignetting going on at the corners, which i could do without. But definitely has wow. Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vignetting also in my view but very nice light and good composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support (I almost opposed) - Pretty Romantic-style composition. The bottom and half of the right margin look too dark to me, and that detracts from the form, but the rest of it makes up for that, so it's still an FP to me although I wish the area in shadow were just a little less black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 15:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly vignetting, overprocessed. —kallerna (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a nice GoT vibe if you don't look closely and see the modern structures ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poc o² 18:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torvsjökvarnar 5 Åsele.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 10:05:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Sweden
Info One of the top 150 photos from WLM Sweden. A dynamic and gorgeous photo of the cutest hydropower plant I've ever seen. Created and uploaded by Helen Simonsson - nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Cute -- WolfgangNihil (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, invalid vote. The rules are such that you can nominate and vote on your own nom, but not vote on other noms until you have made 50 edits here on Commons. You have only done 35. You need to work some more before voting. :-) --Cart (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose dynamic and gorgeous is maybe over stating it (or it's a joke I don't get). It's a very straight shot. Subject in a middle. Not seeing anything special about it. - Benh (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a gorgeous place/photo for a Swede, maybe it's a cultural thing. 'Dynamic' was a bit of a pun since it's a power station but I was referring to effect you get from the angled slope intersected by all the vertical lines in the photo. Placing the house in the middle is nicely balanced by the clearing of trees it is situated in. --Cart (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see the idea behind it but the centered composition is a bit boring here (per Benh). Shady parts are too dark, whites blown, overall technical quality not overwhelming. Nice place but not an outstanding picture of it IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 16:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was divided on this one at first because the technical quality isn't great, but I like the composition and the colours, which makes up for it overall. Cmao20 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--Booth sift 04:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome shot, great colors! I love the serenity of the scene. This picture conveys several aspects of what I understand as being typical for Sweden in an aesthetically pleasing way. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, it's too static Poc o² 20:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition. Very 3D -- many forest scenes can be a confusing jumble of trees and bushes but here the trees (with lichen-covered bark) are strong and distinct and frame the building with a nice front-left / rear-right balance. The forest floor is soft pillowy mossy green in dappled sunlight, contrasting with the straight lines and solid red of the painted wood. -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Colin. I want to walk into this scene (And yet, as beautiful and sylvan as it is, it also has ... Kraftwerk! ) Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vista de Oporto desde Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal, 2019-06-02, DD 08-28 HDR PAN.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 18:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info View of rabelo boats in the Douro River and the city of Porto during the blue hour from Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal. c/u/n Poc o² 18:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support YES! I have added some notes that would be good to see fixed (if possible). I think, compared to the overall image, these are very minor with maybe the exception of the mast that hovers above the buildings. KennyOMG -- 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NO! Sorry, more an answer to the above. Many artifacts of HDR, and very obviously not levelled (tilted to the right). Misleading banks on both sides. On a positive note, I like the colours and the slightly blurry boats (which bring dynamism ;) ). Fairly sure another projection / crop and more careful stitch would improve the picture. - Benh (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Poco will fix the horizon and prob most of the hdr artifacts as well (how about tagging those that bother you?) -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I like the background very much, but blurry boats are too distractive for me. --Ivar (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the movement of the boats, although there are a few aliasing artefacts probably caused by the HDR. Especially look at the people on the far right hand side of the image. I think this one might need a little bit of work, but it should be FP with a few errors resolved. Cmao20 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate the enthusiasm above, nothing too bad--Booth sift 23:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit oversaturated to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @KennyOMG, Cmao20, Basile Morin, and Benh: I've fixed all notes (at least I hope so), some leaning buildings (in the middle) and the saturation. Later today or tomorrow I'll address the HDR artifacts and the perspective on both sides, Poc o² 18:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The boats are too blurry for me --Llez (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @KennyOMG, Cmao20, Basile Morin, and Benh: FYI I am through now with the artifacts and perspective, also applied a tilt Poc o² 09:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any more HDR artefacts on the right now, so I'm pretty happy. Thanks for making the changes. Cmao20 (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Benh "Misleading banks on both sides". On Google Maps, and presumably reality, the bank is flat, not 90°. Which, on an educational media repository, is of some importance. It is a shame you opted for yet another 180° panorama since, as Benh notes, there was certainly an opportunity to make a composition with the dancing blurred boats and a portion of the city. -- Colin (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Google Maps also has no horizon, so the course of the coast does not bother me, but the blurry boats. --Milseburg (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Colin and Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дві сови на гілці.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 16:21:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Byrdyak - uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by Anntinomy (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good and funny! --Ivar (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 18:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Birds are very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary picture with very good quality. -- Pofka (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support just aaawwww...!! - Benh (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh! Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 01:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow. that perfect light on the subjects and that expression ... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MJK 54041 Barockträdgården (Drottningholm).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 12:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Sweden
Info created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support WLM Sweden #2. Lovely composition with the partly open windows inviting the viewer to look into the gardens. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely and unusual castle photo. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Just wow! Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- -donald- (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite small technical flaws. --Ivar (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, unnatural looking sky. Really noisy shadows (especially towards the top of the window frame). Also not sure what's going on with the edges but looks like the sky was swapped/changed somehow and it involved a really terrible cut & paste. These are not "small technical flaws" imho. Pinging @Cart, @Frank Schulenburg, @Coffeeandcrumbs, @-donald-, @Ermell, @Ivar and @ArildV to take another, closer look. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be 100% sure, but to me it looks like this window has a layer of UV and light protecting film installed. It is very common here since the sun is so low most of the year, that the direct sunlight straight in from the windows will damage (bleach) the old wallpapers and art in the rooms. Naturally the film can't be cut to exactly match very old window frames so there will be some part of the window without coating and it will look like whiter borders. If you Google "solskyddsfilm", the Swedish word for it, you will get hundreds of companies offering to install it. Regarding the shadows, I don't think you are allowed to bring a tripod into the castle and doing an HDR with just handheld is a bit tricky, so the shadows are probably what you can get with a single shot if you want the view to look ok. Photographing within an UNESCO World Heritage building is a bit different than shooting something from your kitchen window. The shot is made from the central window, second floor, between the two statues in this photo. --Cart (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are right about the UV protecting film. In Drottningholm (like in many historic buildings in Sweden) a lot of what looks like marble isn't marble but paint on a wood or plaster. // Martin K. (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KennyOMG: I just reworked the edges. The turquoise bars where a strang side effect of the combination of CA-removal, brightening the shadows and darkening the sky in Lightroom, that went by unnoticed while uploading a couple of images on the last day of WLM.
Anyway: This photo is a single shot, no HDR, no retusches, no cut and paste. // Martin K. (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KennyOMG I think making an accusation of sky-swapping without informing the photographer (who is a long term and much respected photographer on Commons) is rather rude. And the "really noisy" shadows just tells me you are pixel peeping a 25MP image and possibly have your monitor set too bright. I don't see anything unnatural about the sky or any evidence of "overprocessing". Frankly this makes me wonder if you need to buy a better monitor, preferably a 4K one where you can't see the pixels without a magnifying glass. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't see any significant technical failings here, and a very wow-y composition. Cmao20 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty Poc o² 20:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support someone help me out -- what painting (or possibly album cover?) does this resemble? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 15:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's too bad somebody opposed this, otherwise it would have been promoted by now! Percival Kestreltail (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support at least it gives me time to support ;) - Benh (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems too familiar I swear--Booth sift 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems with sky for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just great. --Aristeas (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ayuntamiento, Kiel, Alemania, 2019-09-10, DD 51-53 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 20:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Town hall of Kiel, capital of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Its tower, which is 106 metres (348 ft) high, is one of the city landmarks. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 20:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~but I can't shake the impression that the tower seems to be leaning backwards, is that something that can be fixed?~~ Cmao20 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. Cmao20 (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tower is not vertical, he is leaning a little bit to the left (best visible on the right side). Easy to correct. --Llez (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Llez: Done, thanks for the hint Poc o² 08:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support OK now --Llez (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one of my favorite of your photos, Poco! The light and the material in the buildings go together nicely in my opinion. Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great quality, but nothing special (no wow). —kallerna (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same here. And horizontals slightly converging to the (far far) right feels like perspective error rather than compositional feature. - Benh (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice detail, and appreciate that the space looks completely vacant — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, this was one of my personal favorites for WLM 2019 DE. --Aristeas (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roodbruine schijnridderzwam (Lepista flaccida) (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 15:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Lepista flaccida.
Info (Lepista flaccida). A cluster of paralepista flaccida between sheep droppings.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, I do not see reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, valuable photo. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and great texture. Educational too. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but photographically this isn't an image with "wow" for FP, just QI. The mushroom's are appealing, the very busy background and sheep droppings are not. Our better photos have a more interesting angle and show the underside too (e.g. File:Fuchsiger Rötelritterling Lepista flaccida.jpg). I can't really see any texture on the skin (possibly due to f/14 diffraction softening?). Your own File:Roodbruine schijnridderzwam (Lepista flaccida) in een winters decor 02.jpg is far more interesting. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the last bit of Colin's statement. Would definitely vote for the other image. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Ferrocarril White Pass, Portage, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-31, DD 39.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 23:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
Info Passenger train of the Alaska Railroad passing through Moose Pass near Portage, Alaska, USA.
Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love this stormscape at full size. I'm unsure if this is the best category, though, or if I've formatted it optimally. Should it be categorized under weather phenomena, train transportation or as a (primarily) natural landscape? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It also works without the sun.--Ermell (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it could do with a tiny bit more contrast to make it really 'pop', but yes, this is a solid FP candidate from Poco. Cmao20 (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, yes, it wasn't really fun waiting for the train with that weather :) thank you for the nom, Ikan! Poc o² 07:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad it was you out there taking that picture, not me. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 08:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right hand side is cropped arbitrarily for both mountain and train. The rain is visible and appealing at 100% magnification, but at screen size (even a v. high resolution screen) just looks grey and noisy. It is hard to capture rain that looks good and I don't think this works. As a Scot, I wouldn't classify this as a "stormscape" at all. Heavy rain with low-clouds in the mountains is very normal and there's no evidence in the trees of high wind. -- Colin (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To a New Yorker, that's definitely a storm. Thanks for your clear critique; understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me, the weather conditions ruin the view of the train. I just don't feel like it fits with this shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 7:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I think this is a photo of an Alaskan landscape in a rainstorm with a train, not just a photo of a train, but please sign your post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Peulle --Milseburg (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus 16:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, feels very routine, no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per ikan. feels different from most similar scenes I've seen at FPC. (and just "weak" because there are some valid criticisms above from colin et al.) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Fischer.H (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#Alaska

File:Kaunas Town Hall 2, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2019 at 10:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if it is not a Diliff's church interior, I believe it is of excellent quality, has a very pleasant illumination and easily is the best in this prominent Lithuanian landmark Commons category. -- Pofka (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not too wowed by it, sorry. It's "just" a nice photo of a church.--Peulle (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peulle: It is not a church and never was. :) It is a medieval Town Hall of Kaunas, the second largest city of Lithuania. I think, the fact that you mistaken this town hall with a church could count as a wow, and as a support of my statement that it is an extraordinary landmark. :) -- Pofka (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Still now wowed, though. To me it looks like an ordinary postcard.--Peulle (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not the most inspired composition idea ever but I am wowed by the level of detail. I added an annotation where the sky could be improved. --Kreuz schnabel 15:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kreuzschnabel. Cmao20 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why you have to support just because they are who they are. You should support based on other factors as well, I do not get why Diliff being Diliff automatically puts him above everyone else. Sure he is very talented and his pictures are good, but he isn't "easily the best". There must be some competition at least. Now back to this photo, I can see this being used on a postcard on the side. The town hall is quite uninteresting, I think the town hall in some random town in Massachusetts looks much better. Nothing seems so extraordinary. --Booth sift 01:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: Please show any picture which have the same detail, quality in this category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Town_hall_in_Kaunas. All of them have some kind of technical issues: quality, lighting, sky, shadows, etc. So there are no solid competititors for this object in the Commons and it is a proof of its quality. I think the discussion about what is more beautiful is pointless, however one fact is really interesting: when this town hall construction began in 1542 there was absolutely no ideas about the United States and all of the town halls in your mentioned Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Town_halls_in_Massachusetts) were built 200-400 years later, so the historical value of the buildings are incomparable. -- Pofka (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka: It's called a hyperbole. This is so uninteresting that it can't even compare to some town halls in Massachusetts. It's an exaggeration. Second, if anything I'm getting from this, it's that you 1) are clearly a Diliff fanboy/girl and 2) can't tell the difference between featured pictures, valued images, and quality images. Who cares if this is the best image in the category, I can make any category and upload all blurry photos. One of them will clearly be better than the others, but does that give it Featured Pictures status? Also historical is not really a reason. A 30 million year old rock is still a rock. A historical boring town hall is still a boring town hall. This isn't quality images nor valued images, there must be some wow. There's probably tons of more interesting buildings in Lithuania than this non notable town hall. --Booth sift 23:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others: only a very good QI. --A.Savin 19:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a beautiful photo, but the "wow factor" just isn't on par with some of the other candidates. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per kreuzschnabel — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wow-lacking Poc o² 11:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Boothsift: @A.Savin: @Peulle: @Kestreltail: @Poco a poco: If this picture is uninteresting, ordinary, without wow then how these images are FPs? Where is wow in them? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Front_View_of_George_Washington_Masonic_National_Memorial.jpg (completely blurry with smartphone quality, 1,73 MB), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hirtshals_Fyr_2015.jpg (similar illumination, way lower quality 4,67 MB), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_-_ON_-_Toronto_Harbourfront7.jpg (almost completely blurry tower, 3,18 MB), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grisbl%C3%A4nkan_August_2013.jpg (3,58 MB blurry), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basel_-_Wasserturm_Bruderholz2.jpg (very similar to my nominated image, fair competitor). I see double standards or something (maybe jealous by Boothsift because he wants more recognition too with such angry attitude) and denomination process should be started for these images then because they also are non-wow and many of a way lower quality. -- Pofka (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind that I believe delisting an FP should be harder than voting it down if now nominated: (1) Should be delisted. (2) Probably shouldn't be nominated for delisting, as it was unanimously supported in January, 2017. (3) Maybe should be delisted; I'd probably vote to delist. (4) Shouldn't be delisted, because of the fun composition. (5) Good quality and composition, no sound basis for nominating for delisting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Oppose - As for this photo, I just can't get excited about it. The left and right crops are somewhat random, as are the positions of the people on the left. It's a very high-quality image of this building with a normal sky and light, with nothing additional. I think if Mr. Iliff were here, he would say this is not an FP. I don't think it is, either. It's a very good QI, and if our voting that way shows that our standards for what should be featured are higher now than they were, say, in 2017, that's not at all a bad thing but due to the number of excellent exterior pictures of buildings that have been nominated here since then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above listed pictures I voted for, so it's meaningless to ask me why they are featured. You can ask me instead, why I don't think that the Kaunas Town Hall should not be featured, but IMHO 'nuff said already. --A.Savin 22:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those should be Featured Pictures (except maybe the 4th one). This one is more of a contender for FP than all of those, to be honest. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: Please do not tag people for no reason at all. At least check the nominations before accusing us of having double standards. Does any of the nominations you listed even have my vote? How do you know that I would support them? Stop with these accusations. I want more recognition? If I wanted more recognition, I would simply have pinged everyone, wrote in all bold and italicize, increased the font size, made sure all my words were all capitalized, maybe even write change colors every letter. You need to stop making false assumptions and stop accusing people of doing things they did not do. --Booth sift 06:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Okey. Let's start denomination process then because we have higher standards now and according to comments almost none of these images should be FPs, so I'm kind of interested how this will sort out in reality and if the same standards will be applied to them as well. -- Pofka (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka: To be honest, number 4 is okay but everything else is too boring. I would be happy to nominate them for delisting if you are able to provide a reason.--Booth sift 17:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That‘s why I will never ever again nominate one of my photos. —Granada (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You won't be held to that (you have the right to change your mind), but as long as you continue nominating photos to QI/VI (dunno if you've ever nominated to VI, but that would be good), we have a better chance to see them and may ourselves nominate some here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 43-45 HDR Alt.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 03:55:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran, Category:Featured pictures of mosques in Iran
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco -- nominated by Editor-1 -- 03:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the nominator. -- Editor-1 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This version has definitely better quality, but the "magic" windows are cropped now. --Ivar (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better but now the windows are gone!--Booth sift 05:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are gone but the windows itself are not so interesting to my but rather the crepuscular ray, and I definitely prefer here the square bottom Poc o² 09:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 07:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that it would have been nice with the windows, but the quality is much better than the last version. I think it's best in some ways to forget the other pic and judge this as a completely new submission, in which case it's clearly interesting enough for FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iifar and Boothsift: This two images were never about that two tall windows! they are just about the dome and its around. -- Editor-1 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The windows give magnificent light and imho without them the ceiling is just not very attractive. --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--Booth sift 17:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose less good crop than previously. Probably there is a way to paste this into the other. - Benh (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought and tried but the sun moved between both shots and the angle of the ray was different... Poc o² 18:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cropped windows. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 04:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rifugio Lavaredo panorama crop.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 09:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created, uploaded, nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support although there is much in shadow --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose For me, I would prefer the house to be somewhat larger or it would be easily missed. --Booth sift 17:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support @Boothsift There's a house in the picture?! I would never have known. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kestreltail: Are you mocking me or being sarcastic? --Booth sift 18:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift I was proving your point, but at the same time still supporting the promotion. Hope that clears things up! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kestreltail: I guess that I really misinterpreted --Booth sift 01:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: I probably should've mentioned that I consider it good as just a generic mountain scene. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is beautiful and a lot more than a generic mountain photo to me. I've decided it's OK that the sunniest clouds are so bright, so that we can see the darkest parts of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- Beautiful view, but I don't like the sky. The clouds seems to be partailly overexposed. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this, it's a beautiful, almost cinematic, landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random crop on the right (poor composition). Tilt CCW (see people, especially near the house) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Tournasol7. --Ivar (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tournasol. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Poc o² 11:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shah-Jahan receives the Persian ambassador, Muhammad-Ali Beg (26 March 1631) Sahand Ace.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 11:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by kashmiri painter - uploaded & nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 11:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 11:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A bit small for FP in general, but IMO quite adequately sized for a folio, beautiful, and historically important. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me it's too small, considering the level of quality usually expected for non-photographic works here.--Peulle (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But not sure why the uploader used his username at the end of file title (... Sahand Ace.jpg)! --Gnosis (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle --Booth sift 02:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мартини тонкодзьобі (Larus genei).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 11:44:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Ivar (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 15:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason why the foreground is not cropped away? For me, it is quite disturbing and leads the eye away from the birds. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Was going to nominate this myself, then I saw the foreground. The foreground is really distracting and I agree with Uoaei1 that it should be removed.--Booth sift 17:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to

Support now that I think of it--Booth sift 01:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support big wow and cute factor - Benh (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm willing to respect the photographer's choice on this. It looks like foreground ice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The foreground does add something IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unsharpness for me: the foreground, the background, and the birds (!) --Llez (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the foreground(!) and the background(!)... Very hard shooting small subjects from a distance without. - Benh (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beautiful large flower cracker creating brilliant light and sparkles at night.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 17:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Subhrajyoti07 -- Subhrajyoti07 talk 17:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 6 separate images of 1 second duration each of the same firecracker shot at rapid succession and combined together in PS to form the final image. The purpose of combining multiple images was to showcase the different stages of the cracker's rising fountain of sparkles in a single frame.
Abstain as author - Subhrajyoti07 talk 18:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - No body is supporting or opposing this image. Probably it is not up to the standard. I am withdrawing my nomination - Subhrajyoti07 talk 14:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hudson Yards from Hudson Commons (95131p).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 14:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Had the opportunity to tour a new building in the Hudson Yards area of New York City. There was a deck on the 26th floor, so I used the opportunity to take this, stitched together from 6 shots. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've already reused this on an online architecture forum! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but does it need to be bended? - Benh (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, but unless you see something I didn't notice, that's the architect's fault. No reason to support a photo of a scene of architecture you dislike; I think that's a legitimate reason to oppose and might consider doing so, but without faulting the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks bended in the sense "cylindrical projection". - Benh (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's not clear to me. I won't support this photo, though, because the view is of some of the ugly new buildings that have messed up the view of Midtown from New Jersey. Nothing much used to be in Hudson Yards, though other parts of far west Midtown had lowrise buildings, but at least it didn't mess up the view of the classic Modernist skyscrapers further east. I just really dislike the current period of architecture, and to be honest, most of the last couple of periods, going back to around the end of World War II, with some exceptions, but things have gotten worse more recently. Good photograph, but nothing I love looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I suppose Booth sift 01:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky noise, over-exposition, chromatic aberrations and need vertical fix (see the verticals on the right building to guide you) --Wilfredor (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might need a bit of a perspective correction though, per Wilfredor. Cmao20 (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded - did a perspective tweak and some selective denoise on parts of the sky. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Read an article recently about this new observation deck featured at the top. The view from this point is also interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mixed feelings about the development in general, but I'm looking forward to heading up to that deck when it opens in March. Highest outdoor observation deck in the western hemisphere and glass barriers that tilt outwards so you can lean out and look down. Also a glass floor in part of it. It does look precarious up there, though... let's not everybody jump at once. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way it shows this contrast between the older early 20th-century buildings at the bottom and the taller 21st-century buildings. Like so many other aspects of the changing New York skyline, it looks like something you'd see in a Chinese city. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the contrast, while we were looking around from this vantage we started to appreciate the grumbles of nearby buildings whose roofs and windows are now completely in a shadow for a big part of the day... :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift Is Here 02:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vault of the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 14:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran
Info Eastern iwan of Jameh mosque of Isfahan. created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz 14:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 14:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Though it looks like there is a stuck pixel in the very bottom-left. Should be quite easy to fix. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sharp look Rhododendrites . I fixed it --Amirpashaei (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Amirpashaei, how many frames did you use for this image? Poc o² 17:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Poco a poco: 25 pictures with 24mm tilt shift lens . 5 frames and each frame merged from 5 pictures with diffrent levels of exposure--Amirpashaei (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 19:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support yet another ceiling, but an amazing one... beautiful composition. - Benh (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question fake sky ? - Benh (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Benh: no fake sky. this is original . i can send raw file if you want --Amirpashaei (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but Benh's question is well taken. Why isn't the original sky restored? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment comparing the first and most recent versions of the image, something has shifted considerably in the calligraphy at the bottom of the frame. was this a fixed stitching error? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Rhododendrites: yes I fixed all error. I have a problem in stitching in a very little section but I fixed that error--Amirpashaei (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The coran citation was cut on bottom --Wilfredor (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the "3D" effect. --A.Savin 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 09:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks like something that would make a really cool video game background ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift Is Here 02:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Water Survival Training—Ride, Resnik, Fisher, Sullivan, and Seddon.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2019 at 08:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Astronauts
Info created by NASA. This photograph was taken during three days of NASA Water Survival Training at Homestead Air Force Base in 31 July – 2 August 1978. That's why they look soaking wet, especially Fisher. They are conveniently arranged in order Sally Ride, Judith Resnik, Anna Lee Fisher, Kathryn D. Sullivan and Margaret Rhea Seddon. After Valentina Tereshkova and Svetlana Savitskaya, they were the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th women to go to space. Uploaded and nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'd like to know what the original size of this photo is (the archived link says 3,432 × 2,243 pixels, which is this file, but I'm unsure that was the size of the original positive, if that would make a difference). I seem to remember my brother enlarging photos in his home darkroom that were less grainy than this in the early 70s, but of course they also weren't historical and my memory could be false (I don't have any of those photos at my fingertips). Anyway, though, this photo seems quite grainy even for its period, to my eyes, so I'm not sure what to think. It looks fairly good at 70% of full screen on my 13-inch monitor, but even then, Judith Resnick is captured less well than the other women, because her darker skin tone is more affected by the grain. You can see that even in the thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only the quality is awful (it seems to be a picture of a print, or a very bad scan), but also photographically this image is very average in my opinion. Normal shot, poor composition with cut feet, uninteresting light -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, and not a remarkable historic moment --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and Uoaei above. --Cayambe (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Fischer.H (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile and Uoaei --Booth sift 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Рододендронний світанок на Вухатому Камені.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2019 at 06:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural #Ukraine
Info created by and uploaded by Misha Reme - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 06:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 06:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Motif somewhat kitschy but very nice colours. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversaturated in my view (like 1, 2, 3). Would it be possible to get more natural colors? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for this reason, and because of the posterization pointed out by Ikan below. The picture has potential, unfortunately the post-treatment looks wrong -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems like the sort of scene you'd come across at the end of a long day and feel very lucky for it — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Rhododendrites ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Feels a little over-processed but it is well done. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Not only does this feel oversaturated to me, but there are apparent posterization lines, for example in the sky. I feel like this is the kind of photo we're likely to be discussing delisting in a couple of years if we choose to feature it. I really don't find the composition exceptional, either, though of course it's a beautiful scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was ready to support at first, but once I saw the posterisation lines Ikan mentions in the sky, I just can't unsee them. Cmao20 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I think that it's overprocessed. Per Basile, Ikan and Cmao. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile, Ikan and Cmao. --Andrei (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile --Fischer.H (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversatured, too colorful, not natural imo --Isiwal (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Basile and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews--Booth sift 02:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haliaeetus pelagicus Riesenseeadler-3381.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2019 at 22:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info Steller's sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus) in the large aviary of zoo Schmiding (Krenglbach, Upper Austria), created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I think it may be a little better with just a little bit cropped from the top — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite it being in a zoo.--Peulle (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive detail but I don’t like the beak being partly blown for the harsh light. --Kreuz schnabel 10:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful, crisp sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp. Nice bokeh. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 00:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be better if it were in the wild, but like some of my nominations it would prob be difficult --Booth sift 03:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burg Neulengbach SO 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 06:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
Info Southeast view of Neulengbach Castle, Lower Austria. On the east side of the castle, artillery bullet holes from World War II are still visible. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine level of detail but somewhat boring light and uninspired composition. Not much wow for me, sorry. And the left foreground is really distractive. --Kreuz schnabel 18:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel, sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring centered composition, and harsh (close to) midday light. - Benh (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI yes, but not FP per Kreuzschnabel, regrets --GRDN711 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a bit trivial on the first sight, but especially in full resolution the presentation is well detailed and is outstanding authentic for use in any project. --Milseburg (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Milseburg --Llez (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose midday light conditions. --Ivar (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Detail is wow-y, even if the light is not. Cmao20 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel --Booth sift 06:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Milseburg. --Aristeas (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Andrei (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dromaius novaehollandiae - Maroparque 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 05:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Casuariiformes_(Cassowaries_and_Emu)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny: This bird looks better groomed than its FP-colleagues. --Axel ^(talk) 22:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop on the bottom is quite close, is it possible to change this? --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The picture is not cropped, it is the maximum size of my camera (6000x4000 px). I was very close to the animal. --Llez (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 03:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 06:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - sorry to make you wait a few days before this is promoted. :) the sharpness is good, but I just find the light from the close flash and the balance of the top/bottom crop kind of off-putting — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP to me Poc o² 11:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Casuariiformes_(Cassowaries_and_Emu)

File:Внутреннее убранство Троицкой церкви Троице-Лыково в Строгино.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2019 at 10:31:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Russia
Info created by Semyonborisov.ph - uploaded by Niklitov - nominated by Niklitov -- Niklitov (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niklitov (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't like this angle.--Peulle (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropped main altar. -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scene but the angle is a bit clumsy and there's a lot of perspective distortion. Still, it's a nice interior and I'm glad to have seen it. Cmao20 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao--Booth sift 02:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia San Miguel Arcángel - Tazacorte 05.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2019 at 05:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This angle doesn't quite work for me; too much of the building is obscured.--Peulle (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't want to depict the church as a whole but the combination of the church facade and the flowers. I have also pictures of the church, see here and here, but I think, this one is more aesthetic. --Llez (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extreme angle. Not a striking composition. A bit of a tree and a bit of a church, but nothing clearly here -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this. The red of the tree contrasts nicely with the colours of the rest of the pic. I always prefer images of churches when they're shot from a sideways perspective like this one rather than face-on, as I feel you can appreciate what it actually looks like better. Cmao20 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I take this as a picture of the church only, I am not convinced, but if I see it as a beautiful street view with flowers, the rich ornaments and the church, I really like it. --Aristeas (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this is meant to be a pic of the church (which is what the title suggests), then the blooming foreground is WAY too dominant, and is covering up half of the main subject. If the foreground was taken in on purpose, why is it cut off? I cannot see a clear message here. --Kreuz schnabel 18:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb of Ferdowsi (3).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 08:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by Mostafameraji - uploaded by Mostafameraji - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 08:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 08:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic, but it's not quite centred and I can also see a few CAs in places. I think this is the kind of image that might have done well at FPC ten years ago, but for me doesn't quite cut it nowadays. Cmao20 (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and a barrel distortion --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift Is Here 06:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nominationPERSIA♠ 12:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eramgarden98.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 08:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eram garden is a historic Persian garden in Shiraz, Iran. It belonged to the leaders of Qashqai tribe before being confiscated by the central government. The garden, and the building within it, are located at the northern shore of the Khoshk River in the Fars province.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created by Ebrahim Rahiminezhad - uploaded by Ebrahim Rahiminezhad - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 08:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 08:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Gorgeous sight, but for FP, I'm disappointed in the sharpness. We've featured photos of similar motifs with great sharpness, though sadly, not of this motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting place and overall good, but per Ikan. Also I think the white balance is too warm. Cmao20 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose soft focus, perspective fix, white balance, light fix, etc. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- PERSIA♠ 12:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Lavin door Val Lavinuoz naar Alp dÍmmez (2025m.) 11-09-2019. (d.j.b) 14.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2019 at 16:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info Mountain tour from Lavin through Val Lavinuoz to Alp d'Immez (2025m.) A small rapids in the crystal clear water of the interweaving streams of mountain stream Lavinuoz in Val Lavinuoz (Alp d'Immez) at 2025 meters altitude. The fast flowing water has a nice effect on the underlying stones and the brown boulders.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss wow in this scene and the sharpness is good but not crispy Poc o² 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very special. The white stone is ugly and the composition looks a bit too simple -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile -- Karelj (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco and Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as special --Booth sift Is Here 02:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dreizehenmöwe im Flug.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 10:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Rissa
Info created & uploaded by Hobbyfotowiki - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely sharp pic especially given the technical challenges. Cmao20 (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kabukicho red gate and colorful neon street signs at night, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 10:25:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Japan
Info created & uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Tomer T -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric, the framing effect is nice. --Aristeas (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very exciting picture. I really prefer Shinjuku to Times Square (which I find a pain in the ass). This picture is not only really well-composed but makes me want to go back to Tokyo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, close up, with slight smile by Nadar.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 09:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Nadar - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Cmao20 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good portrait: It feels as if he was looking directly at me, right now. And good restauration … --Aristeas (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a face! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 02:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019 - Caritasbrønden om aftenen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 18:46:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Denmark
Info created and uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The presence of the prosaic 7-Eleven is unfortunate, but otherwise, I like the atmosphere and the fountain. I wish I could see the figures atop the fountain better, but you can't have everything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good but the subject is not outstanding to me, I'd have expected a nice ligthing of the fountain, only the shops, which are not really interested are lit. Poc o² 13:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 02:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia parroquial, Geiranger, Noruega, 2019-09-07, DD 84-97 PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 18:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Norway
Info View of the Geiranger church, the surrounding cemetery and the famous Geirangerfjord in the back. The parish church belongs to the Church of Norway and is located in the village of Geiranger, Stranda Municipality, Møre og Romsdal county, Norway. The wooden church was built in a octagonal style in 1842 by architect Hans Klipe but on the same spot there had been previously a stave church, which was torn down in 1742 and a second one that was burned in 1841. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added two notes (stitching errors and blurry frame(s)). --Ivar (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar, I made some improvements and uploaded a new version Poc o² 21:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still not good enough for me to support. --Ivar (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: is it now good enough to get your support? Poc o² 15:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition, though I could imagine a little more room below the church on the picture frame. Looks great at 300% of full screen on my 13-inch laptop. I don't recommend being too influenced by pixel-peeping at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support Striking ~~but tight crop at the bottom~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support shame about the bottom crop and the van by the edge, but the overall composition, light, sky, etc. more than makes up for it — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some slightly blurry bits, but OK overall considering high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the crop is too close at the bottom for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The crop is fine now, , and the scene is nice, but some areas (both foreground and background) look not well focused --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also find the bottom crop too tight. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Better, thanks. The copyediting job could have been better since now I can see where you cloned out stuff but let's not pixel peep :) --Podzemnik (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New version offering a bit more crop at the bottom, FYI @Uoaei1, Podzemnik, and King of Hearts: Poc o² Poc o² 22:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. More relaxing to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 02:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of your best composed pic, lately. So I personally "forgive" the blurry source shots. - Benh (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marmaris beach chairs 2019 G1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2019 at 21:18:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice - and cart-esque --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but nothing special. Just four beach chairs. --Claus 11:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claus, sorry. --A.Savin 14:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "So what?" was my first thought, too. Nice but no wow. If only the shadow was fully visible, that would add some depth. --Kreuz schnabel 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately I think I agree with the above - good quality, nice snap, but not sufficiently interesting or unique for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for the negativity but I don't see how four stacked chairs are special--Booth sift 01:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the surrealism. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image is not about a stack of chairs. This image is about emotions. An abandoned beach, where recently there were a lot of people resting. Abandoned sea. And the sadness is that all the good things ended this season. Perhaps I could not convey the emotions too well, or not everyone is able to feel these emotions. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With your explanation, I can see what you were aiming at (I have actually taken similar photos myself), but the photo is too much of a close-up for those emotions to come into play. I think it would have worked better if you had taken a wider shot so that more of the abandoned beach and empty sea were in frame, perhaps with the wave line/shoreline tapering off in the distance. This photo does not directly convey emptiness since it's a bit full of chairs. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The emotion splashes maybe not from, But the solitude of the chairs though. I also like the simplicity.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift Is Here 04:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of Distinction Hotel facade, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 21:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
Info All by me. I like the light and the abstraction. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kind of abstract pattern with creative light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good abstract, it would be nice to see more like this at FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Pudelek (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 14:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I love that although it seems flawless at low-res, you can see all the spalling and cracks in great detail at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ribbed vault of Jameh Mosque of Isfahan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 01:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran
Info Ribbed vault of Jameh Mosque of Isfahan. created and uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 01:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 01:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Splendid sight, fine photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View from Mt Fyffe, Kaikoura Ranges, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 21:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's a view from Mt Fyffe in Kaikoura Ranges, New Zealand. I quite like the light and the spring vibes. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bij Kamering, de Drau IMG 1762 2019-08-10 12.03.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 07:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
Info all by Michielverbeek - -- Michielverbeek (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The still water has promise but the harsh midday light and lack of sharpness is a problem. Perhaps in autumn the colours will be better. -- Colin (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool, peaceful scene and well captured, but not interesting enough for FP IMO. There isn't a lot to the composition beyond the reflections. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift Is Here 04:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dactylorhiza russowii infructescence - Niitvälja bog.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 08:10:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by Ivar (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the bokeh? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: bogs vegetation. Some is still green, some is already dried-up. --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks. It somehow strikes me funny, but I think this photo deserves the star because it's an impressive closeup of the plant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 04:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales

File:MarusyaSlobozhan Spitz4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2019 at 10:46:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created by Marusya Slobozhan - uploaded by Marusya Slobozhan - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 11:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking to the upper limit of the clouds in the distance it looks strong tilted cw to me. --Milseburg (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg – definitely tilted. Excellent quality though. Is there a slightly wider crop of this shot? --Kreuz schnabel 15:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful fantasyland - I mean, this would be a great backdrop for a fantasy movie or cover of a 1970s art rock album. I don't care whether something that feels fantastical to me is "tilted", because I'm not trying to perceive its relationship to ordinary life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too yellow for 31. may at 17:30, golden hour started there about 20:00. --Ivar (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too yellow--Booth sift 06:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, the positive impressions predominate here.--Ermell (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Looks too unnatural to me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed --Andrei (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Were it not for the seemingly post-production golden hour, I would totally agree with Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nabburg Neusath Freilandmuseum Schmiede Werkstatt 8235039-2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 09:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Forge in the open-air museum Oberpfalz in Neusath. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - There's a lot to like in this photo, but is a wider crop on the right to encompass the whole flywheel possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The room is quite small and I was with the 7mm WA with the back to the wall. I would have preferred more. Of three shots, this is the best representation of the apparent chaos.--Ermell (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love the lighting which, subtle but beautiful, reveals all these old tool as if they were magic artifacts. --Aristeas (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 14:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was quite excited until I saw that it was a photo in a museum --Wilfredor (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The right side is a bit cluttered but still great. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Booth sift 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support einfach nur geil, Klasse. viel besser als das Siegerbild. --Ralf Roletschek 19:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:105 Polish Air Force MiG-29A Fulcrum ILA Berlin 2016 10.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 13:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really dynamic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically excellent.--Peulle (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done in A technically challenging situation --GRDN711 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carpaccio de bœuf, restaurant Danieli (Vienne, Autriche).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 18:31:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Benoît Prieur - uploaded by Benoît Prieur - nominated by Benoît Prieur -- --Benoît (d) 18:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Benoît (d) 18:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The quality is great and this is a deserving QI, but for FP level food photography I'd like to see something a bit more dynamic in terms of composition or arrangement, rather than just a photo of a plate of food. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks tasty but the framing is cropped too tight, there are stains at the top, and overall the smartphone quality lacks sharpness -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am not sure about white balance; on my screen the colours look a bit off. Could that be improved? --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretful oppose per Cmao20. The white balance seems to be on the cold side. --Dinkum (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is really great focus for a smart phone and almost an FP, but the lemon looks too green and just plain dark. If you can fix the colors, I may well vote to support this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 --Andrei (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao--Booth sift 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kasyno Szlacheckie we Lwowie (1).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 14:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it but I am not too sure about the right crop. --Dinkum (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, an image that really pulls you in. Cmao20 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very inviting picture. I feel invited to take a look and walk up the staircase. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful architecture full of curves and elegant decorations -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile--Ermell (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 00:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 02:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, but it is too dark. Especially the dark areas, but also the whole pic. -- -donald- (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not too bad on my screen, have you calibrated your screen? --Gnosis (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Henry39 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Castelo dos Mouros, Sintra, Portugal, 2019-05-25, DD 112-121 PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 20:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Portugal
Info Panoramic view of the interior of the castle of the Moors ("Castelo dos Mouros"), a hilltop medieval castle located in the municipality of Sintra, about 25 kilometres (16 mi) northwest of Lisbon. Built by the Moors in the 8th and 9th centuries, the UNESCO World Heritage Site was an important strategic point during the Reconquista, and was taken by Christian forces after the fall of Lisbon in 1147. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 20:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This seems like a deserving candidate, but I like to look at these panoramas at full size, and then I see that the sky is way blotchier and more line-covered than usual for your work. So perhaps you could smooth out the sky where needed. Also, I assume this is a stitched panorama. Did you indicate somewhere how many pictures are stitched? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: the number of frames is always embedded in the filename. Will add it also to the description page Poc o² 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a note to the image of a possible stitching error (otherwise that [is merlon the right term?] has a strange lip on it..?) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A good, sharp candidate, but that surely has to be a stitching error. Will support when fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your feedback, all fixable, will upload a new version this evening CET time. Poc o² 13:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded FYI Ikan Kekek, Rhododendrites, Cmao20 Poc o² 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last version is fixed? I do not see that. --Ivar (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: can you be more precise? what do you miss? Poc o² 11:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded, Ivar, Poc o² 20:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 02:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parco Naturale Tre Cime horses 3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2019 at 06:53:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition. But what is the message written on the grass, "Danie I♥"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The left half is clearly leaning out (both horses and mountains) Poc o² 13:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The hills are rather steep. —kallerna (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per your last nom, quite a cinematic landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 00:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmm --Podzemnik (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice mood - Benh (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 14:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 02:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support! — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cappella del Santissimo Sacramento Fede 2 Santa Agata Brescia.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2019 at 09:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very good lighting, angle of view, and perspective. Sorry. --A.Savin 14:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lighting is one of the best I ever had on several hundreds of pictures I took of marble statues, at least in my opinion--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lighting is more than fine for me as it gives that mysterious/holy feeling when it shines from the above. -- Pofka (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pofka. This is the kind of image that I might not support were it only, say, 10mpx, but since it's extremely sharp at more than 50, it definitely has my vote. Cmao20 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Savin. I think it takes more than a straight shot of a statue to get an FP label. Nothing special here. Also the WB is leaning on cold side, and a bit noisy. - Benh (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Savin and Benh; awkward crops on sides don't help. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Collégiale Saint-Martin - intérieur - retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus avec starburst (Colmar).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2019 at 14:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 14:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 14:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, sorry! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei, sorry. What is visible on the picture is not particularly special for me to see over quality issues. --A.Savin 18:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but the quality is not quite there in this very competitive genre. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not as sharp or zoomed in as similar photos we've featured by Uoaei1. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift 02:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, plus there’s a perspective issue, the altar is tilted CCW. --Kreuz schnabel 10:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Tilted, WB off, unsharp, bad lighting, absolutely no supports by anyone except the creator/nominator in four days ... what's to like? Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kremsmünster Stift Orgelempore-1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2019 at 10:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Pipe Organ in the church of Kremsmünster abbey illuminated by the sunset light, created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks rather over-processed to me. Also I don't think you've handled the two colour temperatures well -- the rest of the church would not appear as blue-cold as it does here. -- Colin (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I checked the original RAW-file of 2015 and have to admit that you are right, sorry, I should have done that before nominating. --Isiwal (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Branta canadensis Redwood Shores May 2011 005.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 14:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info created & uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely, but the head of the adult goose gets lost in the background. —kallerna (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny but per Kallerna: unsuitable background. --Kreuz schnabel 22:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Justly a QI but not an FP for the reasons given. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferronor GT46AC 4601 Vallenar.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2019 at 22:12:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail Vehicles
Comment Ferronor's GT46AC 4601 hauls an empty iron ore train through the town of Vallenar, Chile.
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Podzemnik (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems good, but maybe a little underexposed (probably fixable)? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not an interesting scene or great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but I find the background (the trucks, the houses) too distracting. In my opinion, this is not as interesting as many of Kabelleger's other train pictures. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bruce1ee --GRDN711 (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI but too many dispensable elements (including waste) in the picture, sorry. --A.Savin 14:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Your train photos are an extraordinary body of work, but I find this one falls short of FP, as the scenery is quite uninteresting. Cmao20 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scenery with lots to see. The wow effect doesn't come immediately but the picture is very good from a technical and informative point of view.--Ermell (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have been great if the train on the curve were about the only thing, but it's so busy that that gets lost. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift Is Here 02:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zinnienblüte Zinnia elegans stack15 20190722-RM-7222254.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2019 at 02:18:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 02:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 02:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 06:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Oversharpened. Can you denoise the background? -- -donald- (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I hope it´s better now.--Ermell (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Do you have any location info for description? --GRDN711 (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711: Somewhere in Bavaria apparently--Booth sift Is Here 02:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colours - Benh (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done again. Cmao20 (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Branta canadensis Redwood Shores May 2011 011.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2019 at 16:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info created & uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I would like to support a composition of a goose followed by her goslings, but this one isn't working for me. The other one was a better composition, albeit with the issues that sunk its nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. This is just a tad bit boring, nothing is really special here and the composition is rather lacking--Booth sift Is Here 06:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others plus irritating background, even worse than the other one. You have to carefully carve the mother goose’s neck off the pebbles before you can see it. --Kreuz schnabel 07:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrena (female) - Prunus cerasus - Keila.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 17:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info This female mining bee is identified to family level by specialist. Exact species identification could be done only under a microscope. All by Ivar (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Toronto - ON - Toronto Harbourfront7.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 10:59:37

Info Blurry, low quality and probably wouldn't be even accepted as QI now. (Original nomination)
Delist -- -- Pofka (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where do you see blur? The photo is by all means OK for QI and I see no reason to delist it from FP at this point, either. --A.Savin 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @A.Savin: Zoom in to the tower - it slowly melts with the sky with its blurry pixels. Other buildings have the same issue and that is simply because this image was taken 10 years ago with (now) outdated camera. Nowadays cameras captures even fastly moving objects without such shaky effect. -- Pofka (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need to teach me how to review pictures in terms of quality. Yes, of course I zoomed in -- truly at 100%. It seems to me, you are judging this photo after zooming in at far more than 100%; then it's of course no surprise to see blurry pixels everywhere; otherwise I simply cannot explain your statements about this and the one below. An other reason might be, that you have an old low-res monitor. There is definitely something wrong. And what can I say about your silly "double standards" accusation? Delisting a long-term FP is a bit different story than promoting a new FP candidate, you know? --A.Savin 03:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - At 100% almost every image does not have clear quality issues, except for such obvious reasons as poor lighting, fake colors, etc. If you did not noticed, everyone is zooming way more than 100% to check details because the 4 mpxs era is over long time ago. -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if you usually zoom your pictures, say, at 150%, then also File:Kaunas Town Hall 2, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg will appear rather soft; I've checked. So, your explanation is not logical so far; but in case you zoomed File:Toronto - ON - Toronto Harbourfront7.jpg to the same size as Kaunas Hall to compare, it's clear of course: 2,434 × 3,834 pixels vs. 4,983 × 8,000 pixels are hardly to compare. So, the correct rationale for delisting Toronto Harbour is not "blurry" (because IMHO there is a huge difference between "not pinsharp" and "blurry"), but "low resolution compared to what today's high-end cameras such as Nikon D850 provide". But the current consensus is that we should NOT delist formerly promoted pictures just because of their resolution of less than 10 Mpx. --A.Savin 15:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination seem just to be a reaction of disappointment after nomination of Kaunas Town hall has failed. Sharpness is ok here. I can´t see any reason for delisting and support the decision from 2013. --Milseburg (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milseburg: Well there was a lot of talks about "quality standards" and others noted in your mentioned nomination that these images are even worse, so it is my duty to provide equality and see if some people's words are worth anything. -- Pofka (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think I said in that thread that I might or would probably vote to delist this one (I don't remember which), but looking at it again, it's really not bad, and I think delisting should be reserved for obvious cases. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milseburg and what I wrote in the other delist. Feeling like people are applying different standards to your photo is frustrating, and it's often the case that we nominate something better than other FPs and it doesn't get promoted. It's not always predictable or necessarily fair, even, except that the process is the same for everyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Booth sift Is Here 06:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 10:54:47

Info Very blurry, probably has lower quality than nowadays smartphones pictures. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Pofka (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Very blurry"? Are you sure you're seeing the same picture? --A.Savin 13:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @A.Savin: Zoom in. Even the sky is full of grain. What are you pretending? Please prove how it complies with the "quality standards" when it is of such a low quality that even the sky cannot handle the grain? -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The only downside is the composition, but that isn't your argument here--Boothsift 17:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boothsift: Oh yeah, but how about "quality standards" with all that grain? Yup, I was right about double standards. Funny. -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka: When did I mention quality at all on your previous nomination? --Booth sift 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have crossed my vote and change to Delist because having looked at it multiple times, I can see how bad the quality is. --Booth sift 04:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I think this one is not sharp enough, though well-composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pofka, I have no idea what you are talking about when you bring up "double standards". I certainly do have different standards for whether to support a new nomination vs. whether to vote to delist an existing FP. Yes, that is a double standard, and I think it's a justified one, because unless a photo is an obvious case for delisting, I'd rather we not spend the time looking at and thinking about it, when we could instead look at new nominees. You seem to disagree, but I don't really know what axe you're grinding or why. All of us nominate photos that don't get voted in as FPs, and in most cases, the folks who are nominating actually took the photo, so they should presumably be more likely to have hurt feelings when people find fault with their work, but most regulars here take things more in stride than you seem to be at the moment. I have no idea what you're dealing with in your own life, but if you're finding it painful or upsetting to be on FPC, taking a bit of time off to refresh yourself could be a good thing. No pressure, your choice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: When I nominate pictures or support nominations for years I also compare it with other pictures in the category. What chances this image would have if I nominated it now? It would be like 99% oppose. So how it can be "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images."? With all that grain and blurry details this picture certainly is not one of the finest images in the Commons. -- Pofka (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I agree with you. But while it definitely makes sense to compare photos to existing FPs, if you're comparing photos with FPs from 2008, you should be careful, and moreover, you're always on firmer ground when a photo you nominate is either clearly superior to existing FPs and/or has some kind of extra quality that makes it striking or especially beautiful. That may not be the way you want it to be, but it's practical. We are never going to go through all of the old FPs and delist the ones that aren't up to current standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Well, articles in Wikipedia are falling like autumn leafs from Good article / Featured article status, so why it should be different with Good Images / Featured images? With these arguments you just presented English Wikipedia would still have GA/FA about countries and other subjects articles where a comprehensive description is required with ~5 sections and a few references because it was fine in early ~2000, but nowadays such articles receives warning templates and might even be deleted. So when we have such clear steps about GA/FA denominations I see absolutely no logic to protect images which are absolutely not up to date with the nowadays technologies. This image is a very, very clear example of that and as I already mentioned to another person in this discussion: just try comparing sky in this EXAMPLE I took with my former 2012 smartphone in 2013, which produces quite rubish images nowadays, with sky in Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg and you will notice that it is a poor quality even for a 2011 image which was produced with a large sensor DSLR. -- Pofka (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the membership of Wikipedia by comparison with Commons? Right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Different languages Wikipedias also have separate logins, however they all delist articles which are outdated from GA/FA status. FA: "DNA is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." does that remind something? Text in the FP template says that "is considered one of the finest images", so it means that it is currently one of the best images here (which you agreed is false). There is a separate category called "Former featured pictures", which is way more suitable for outdated FPs. Article Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images clearly states issues that are unacceptable for GIs/FPs and this image clearly violates the "Noise" rule. -- Pofka (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to continue ignoring practical questions. This isn't Wikipedia and has just enough membership to pass FPs, and not enough to remove hundreds of old FP designations. For that reason, it makes every bit of sense to have tough standards for removing stars. We don't want to encourage people to waste lots of time. Except that you do want to waste lots of time. Now. Just because you didn't like one photo you nominated being voted down. Sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but that's how it seems to me. And I don't plan on spending more time in this discussion; I've said my piece. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - not seeing any real reason for delisting. Delisting isn't for files that wouldn't pass today. It's also not for files that might pass on a Tuesday but not next Wednesday. That this passed but your recent nomination didn't might mean standards have increased, but can also mean that different people were there, or that too many similar things have been nominated lately, or that the wind is blowing a different direction, or it's just not meant to be. Delisting other images because of that just seems pointy. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unapealing to go through the old FPs, if they still meet today's standards. If they did in former times, it should be enough, unless there is a clear wrong decision. I can not recognize that here. --Milseburg (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Milseburg: How can it meet today's standards when you can see "snow" in the clear summer sky? My old smartphone from 2012, which I do not use anymore for years, produced similar amount of grain (EXAMPLE), so I am kind of surprised that this image passed in 2011 and have such quality issues even if it probably was taken with a large sensor DSLR. -- Pofka (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Quality not very good, resolution low even for NIKON D90. --Ivar (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think we should delist a Featured Picture unless there is something blatantly wrong with it, like misleadingly fake colors. Rhododendrites had a beautiful argument; go read it. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sharpness is not great (why f/16? neither necessary nor appropriate here), but per Rhododendrites I see no need to delist it. --Aristeas (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could be a little sharper but since then we've promoted quite a few others with more noticeable issues in that department. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --Ralf Roletschek 20:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitterbach abgestorbene Fichte 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 08:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Dead Norway spruce (Picea abies) near Mitterbach am Erlaufsee, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a good cover for some sort of noir crime novel. Cmao20 (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Some very unnatural effects were applied producing it. The sky at some parts is 100% white (especially the noted upper right corner) and even blends with the Commons website design, which is completely impossible in reality. -- Pofka (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Well, it is a B/W filter with some sepia toning, which is of course unnatural. If it blends with the white background, check the calibration of your monitor - on mine it does not. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but not appealing to me Poc o² 13:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco and Pofka. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting tree to me. The picture is stark and I guess not for everyone, but I think it's a worthwhile one of its type. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco--Booth sift Is Here 06:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pacific Tree Frog (Pseudacris regilla) 3.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 11:09:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Hylidae (Tree Frogs
Info created & uploaded by The High Fin Sperm Whale - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution and technical quality in general compared to what is already at Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Small and unimpressive. Tomer T, please make sure to look at existing, and especially fairly recent FPs in the same category that you're thinking of nominating in. This is not close at all to an FP, nor do I consider it a QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek, what are you trying to suggest? Tomer T (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I said. What part of what I suggested was unclear? If you're already looking at existing FPs in each category, especially recent ones, before each nomination you make, I don't know what to suggest. It's clear that a bunch of your nominations are being voted down as below FP standards, right? So I'm trying to make a helpful suggestion that would help you avoid suffering the same fate repeatedly, but if it's not helpful to you, OK, whatever. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed your nominations since the beginning of October. You've made a number of terrific nominations that were clear FPs, and I was conflating some other people's nominations with some of yours. Still, there have been some other cases of nominations that were judged to be below standards or borderline. Anyway, I mean no disrespect. I've made at least my share of nominations that mystified others as much as this one mystifies me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, I've been nominating pictures in the last few years, and made a lot of successful nominations. You can look at my user page to view all my successfully nominated images over the years, 349 until now, not many users made more successful nominations. Sometimes there are unsuccessful nominations, even one after the other, it's inevitable, and I suppose that the standards may have grown higher throughout the years. But there was some tone of contempt from your first comment indeed. I always learn from the comments on my nominations, there's no need to send me to browse through the tens of thousands of Commons FPs. And I can handle with unsuccessful nominations. Tomer T (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just suggesting to look at FPs in the same category (in this case, of frogs), but I apologize for my initial tone, which was indeed unwarranted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality too low and composition/perspective too uninteresting to make up for the small image size. IOW: Not too bad but not enough wow to feature either IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 15:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burg Spangenberg IMG 1212.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 15:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good illustrative QI, but to me there's too much blurry vegetation in the foreground, and the light is not the best. Cmao20 (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a bit of a complement to File:Церковь Параскевы Пятницы - 1.jpg, nominated above, but it doesn't have as developed an - I'm not sure composition is the right word, maybe theme. It's a good photo, but I basically agree with Cmao20 about the foliage, especially on the left side, as it blocks some of the dilapidated castle. The light, though, is fine for me. I'm wondering if you could get a less obstructed view of this castle from somewhere, as it is an interesting subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No bueno para FP en mi opinión porque el foto tiene muchos árboles en frente de el castillo, lo siento--Booth sift Is Here 02:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hubertine Auclert 1910.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 09:40:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Agence Rol - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Storkyrkan and Kungliga slottet Stockholm 2016 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 11:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Info Storkyrkan (the 'Great Church'), the oldest church in central Stockholm and a hugely important example of Swedish Brick Gothic architecture. I enjoyed the light, atmosphere and composition of this photo. created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, composition and clouds are not interesting enough for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light makes it special IMHO. --Aristeas (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the wintry light and clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 14:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit of a cluttered composition to me Poc o² 13:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An OK winter cityscape, but not FP material for me (see the halo around the obelisk, also). Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even at larger than full size, I don't see such a halo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothig special, looks chaotic, no reason for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Triviella aperta 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2019 at 21:58:11 (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) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Booth sift Is Here 02:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tübingen - Neckarfront - Ansicht von Plataneninsel mit Stocherkahn.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 11:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements
Info The 'Neckarfront', a set of houses along the Neckar river in Tübingen, Germany, almost all of which are listed buildings - and, I feel, captured here in a sensitive and well-composed shot. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably quite a nice place to live ;-) --A.Savin 14:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FP, if the disturbing tree on the upper right part wasn´t there. --Milseburg (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have actually tried to take this photo with less hedge and tree at the right, but it was not possible – I could not stand on the other side of the hedge (there’s a pretty steep slope there), and if I moved farther forward or backward along the river, the perspective of the buildings was worse. Therefore I decided it was the best possible solution to include the tree, which is actually interesting because it is typical for the Plataneninsel. --Aristeas (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for nominating ;–). I have added an English description. --Aristeas (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support high-quality and beautiful. And yes, as A.Savin mentioned above, this place truely is a nice place to live. Ahmad^talk 18:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As others have said, this photo really sells Tübingen effectively. I want to go there now. Perhaps their Tourism Agency would like to use this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but why blurring all the faces? As far as I understand COM:PEOPLE#Identification, Commons does not encourage this practice. These people are very small in the picture, then I don't think publishing an image with them is really a problem. In any case nobody usually do that when uploading a picture of a touristic site with a crowd for example. Here this attempt to anonymise ruins it a bit at full size, in my view. Beautiful riverbank with colorful buildings, but I would prefer to support the non-retouched version -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with this. When you are outside in public, you have no presumption of not being seen or photographed, and they are not the main subjects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurred faces were my attempt to satisfy the GDPR at least partially (there is much unsureness about the exact meaning of the GDPR for photos like this one under German photographers and lawyers), but now that you're all saying it's not necessary, I will be brave and upload a on-retouched version. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. And would these people be sitting along the river or rowing on a pleasure-craft instead of being at their office, I'm sure even their boss would not recognize them -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~oppose~~ - was going to support, because it is a lovely photo, but when I look at it in full resolution I just can't look past the blurred faces. even the people really far off have little smudges. happy to switch to support with a new version. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Basile Morin: @Rhododendrites: New version without masking uploaded. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, for what it's worth I think it's an improvement too. Huge numbers of FP landscapes contain little figures like that, I don't think any of them are prominent enough that there should be any GDPR concerns. Cmao20 (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version per above — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 02:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the new version --Isiwal (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the tree on the right, it nicely frames the composition on that side. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ich wollte schon kontra stimmen, habe mir das Bild schon vorher angesehen. Ohne verpixelte Gesichter aber eindeutig exzellent. --Ralf Roletschek 20:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super! --Nickispeaki (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exoplanet Travel Bureau, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 18:57:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

55 Cancri e poster: "Lava life / Skies sparkle above a never-ending ocean of lava"
51 Pegasi b poster: "Greetings from your first exoplanet"
HD 40307 g poster: "Experience the gravity of HD 40307 g / A Super Earth"
Kepler-16b poster: "Relax on Kepler-16b / The land of two suns / Where your shadow always has company"
Kepler-186f poster: "Where the grass is always redder on the other side"
PSO J318.5-22 poster: "Visit the planet with no star / where the nightlife never ends!"
HD 189733 b poster: "The nightmare world of HD 189733 b presents Rains of Terror" [extended text in description]
TRAPPIST-1e poster: "Planet hop from TRAPPIST-1e / Voted best 'hab zone' vacation within 12 parsecs of Earth"
PSR B1257+12 poster: "Planets caught in the horrifying grip of an undead star / PSR B1257+12 presents Zombie Worlds" [extended text in description]

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Science
Info NASA's Exoplanet Exploration Program released a set of "Exoplanet Travel Bureau" posters. They're lovely illustrations in a sort of retrofuturist style. Each of them highlights interesting facts about the planets. The Rains of Terror and Zombie Worlds posters were released after the others, for Halloween I believe. They're a little different, but are nonetheless listed as part of this "Travel Bureau" set. I've uploaded all original TIFFs/JPGs, but am nominating a set of very high quality PNGs which I created from the TIFFs. I would've nominated the TIFFs, but they're both huge and seem to be causing a couple errors. JPGs weren't available for all of them, and PNG is better for this sort of image anyway. created by NASA/JPL-CalTech. uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find these absolutely delightful, and they have very high levels of quality, educational value, and wow factor. First time I've thought to nominate a set, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Those folks at NASA really have a sense of humor! This is really different from every other FPC nom I can remember. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Stunning images. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember coming across some of these when they first came out last year. I wouldn't immediately have thought of them as FP material, but now they're here, I don't see why not. They're actually quite good, whimsical art, and they succeed in conveying interesting facts about each of the exoplanets. Good work in making the effort to create PNGs from the original TIFFs rather than just nominating the JPEGs. Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support NASA's got some really good people in their PR department. I'm a great fan of those rip-offs from movie posters they do for all ISS missions. :) --Cart (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I've never seen those. That's some real dedication to that one... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, no wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent use of historical expressions.--Peulle (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 04:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Science#Astronomy

File:Hemidactylus frenatus mating, ventral view.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 02:20:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Gekkonidae_(Geckos)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Animals in the wild -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive! Very useful, too, and should be a VI as well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support useful and splendid! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 16:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the detailed description Poc o² 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've learnt myself after this photo too. Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Booth sift Is Here 02:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly very good quality and valuable. Cmao20 (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anentome helena 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 05:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by and uploaded by Llez - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift Is Here 05:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift Is Here 05:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Boothsift for the nomination --Llez (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosa 'Aspirin Rose' (actm) 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 07:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info Budding rose. Rosa 'Aspirin Rose' is a flowering spray rose with semi-filled and pure white flowers with pink in the heart.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Good composition, but a bit of banding and colour noise in the shadows. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.@Cmao20: Photo refined and noise suppressed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better. Cmao20 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems like a deserving candidate to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ...after browsing the existing FPs. Poc o² 13:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too harsh shadows, slightly distracting background, existing FPs. —kallerna (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't find the composition, the resolution, the light or the subject particularly special. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows are too harsh --Booth sift Is Here 04:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemnik. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiesa di Santa Agata volta sopra l'ingresso Brescia.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 15:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I said on QIC, the damage to the ceiling is regrettable but this is an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turdus torquatus alpestris 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 18:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info Turdus torquatus (fr: merle à plastron, en: ring ouzel) created by Paco Gómez - uploaded by Vnyyy - nominated by Vnyyy -- Vnyyy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vnyyy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality, nothing featurable --A.Savin 20:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is just not there --Booth sift Is Here 02:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others - good, but not close to FP quality. Compare it to any featured bird portrait from the last few years, and you'll see the difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per above. Cmao20 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; does not stand out enough to join the ranks of our bird FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de París desde el Musée d'Orsay.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 17:44:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Carlos Reusser Monsalvez from Santiago, Chile - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the quality is not perfect, but not so important for this kind of picture. -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good example where black-and-white works best. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The quality really isn't great, but I think the wow-factor makes up for it overall. Cmao20 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If this were a historic picture from the 1930s, I'd definitely consider supporting it, but it's from 2016, and I'm not awed. To me, the composition is fairly good but not great, and there's a lot of grain. Also, there's no way the areas in shadow are that dark in that room, given the amount of light coming in from outside. I don't think making the shadows that dark improves the composition, but rather, it probably damages it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy with no justification -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretful per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile -- Karelj (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile --Booth sift Is Here 02:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auschwitz Muzeum Shoes.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2019 at 00:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing
Info created by Bibi595 - uploaded by Bibi595 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What an extremely grim picture! I can't look at it objectively, but that's probably the point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretful oppose, this is not well in focus. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan; and in that case DOF is not a flaw, it increases the expressiveness imo. --Isiwal (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Isiwal. --Dinkum (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the idea, but the quality is insufficient, sorry. --A.Savin 18:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin and Uoaei1 --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a motif we definitely need an FP for, but quality-wise this is not it. Cmao20 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Cmao20. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As Per Cmao--Booth sift Is Here 02:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1 and A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift Is Here 05:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Hohenwerfen, Werfen, Austria, 2019-05-17, DD 119.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 22:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
Info Corridor inside of castle Hohenwerfen, Werfen, near Salzburg, Austria. The medieval rock castle, situated on a 623 metres (2,044 ft) precipice overlooking the town of Werfen in the Salzach valley. The fortress is a "sister" of Hohensalzburg Fortress, both built by the Archbishops of Salzburg in the 11th century. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 22:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hope no-one votes against this because of the amount of darkness in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What does that sign say? --Booth sift Is Here 06:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Restaurant Burgschenke. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice, but it's a pity that the fire alarm spoils the atmosphere a bit. I Support the photo, although I broke my own camera lens in this castle... — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draceane: I've darkened that area a bit Poc o² 13:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a significant enough change for you to ping everyone about. Maybe some people would disagree. I'd like a second opinion before you do anything, as I wouldn't want to annoy anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I'm not sure that this kind of change is something that requires pinging all voters so far, but if it's you who asks, will do so. @Ralf Roletschek, Boothsift, Cmao20, Uoaei1, Pudelek, Hanooz, GRDN711, Aristeas, Isiwal, and Frank Schulenburg: FYI I've darkened a bit the bottom left corner where there is a fire emergency button and also applied a slight perspective correction to get round things round. Poc o² 09:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support In terms of composition this is the best of your recent candidates so far. Cmao20 (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still OK for me, even though there was no reason for changing anything imo. --Isiwal (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry Ikan Kekek (and others), really similar to this or that in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift Is Here 05:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Церковь Параскевы Пятницы - 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 06:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
Info created and uploaded by Mpr89 - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That scene and all that decay are very affecting, but Mpr89, you need to clean up a large number of small dust spots. I think that will be challenging. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: how about now? --Ivar (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality of this image is not perfect, but the atmosphere and composition are fascinating and get it over the line for me. Cmao20 (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes definitely -- one of my WLM'18 top favourites, the scenery has even some "apocalyptic" touch. --A.Savin 10:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oversharpening --Wilfredor (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colours look odd...have you used a filter or something? —kallerna (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kallerna: I can't comment anything about filters, but if you compare shooting time (after midnight) light conditions with daylight, the colors might look a bit differently. --Ivar (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grey sky adds something to the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to have the moon a bit lower and not to be overexposed. But still solid FP, great atmosphere! --Podzemnik (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also find the spooky, after-midnight lighting to be alluring but wonder if this image would be stronger if the moon was cropped off at the top. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For my part, I'd rather the moon not be cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik--Ermell (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tight crop at the top, unfortunately we can't decide to put the moon so high or lower, otherwise there's enough sky in the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the atmosphere alone! - Benh (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a Tim Burton movie. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heiligenkreuz Kalvarienberg 20191012 02.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2019 at 06:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Calvary in Heiligenkreuz, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. - Benh (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah it doesn't quite work for me either, there are just too many issues.--Peulle (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blue sky but harsh light. It lacks wow for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Certainly QI but nothing special to feature IMHO, no clear subject, most of the background being obstructed by foliage. The harsh light doesn’t help. --Kreuz schnabel 07:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin.--Fischer.H (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:North of tehran.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 16:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Tehran is a polluted city. in the nature day people go out of the city in nature and number of cars decreases. because that and wind and after 3 days raining I was able to photograph Tehran in its cleanest condition from above milad tower. --Amirpashaei (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks very good to me, but please fix the perspective at the right. --A.Savin 18:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @A.Savin: thanks for your offer. I fixed the perspective. --Amirpashaei (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine with me, Support --A.Savin 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow and very detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming this is a panorama - how many frames wide and how many frames tall? HDR as well? --GRDN711 (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GRDN711: 11 vertical (portrait) frames with 50mm lens and each frame contain 3 pictures with different levels of exposure. A total of 33 pictures--Amirpashaei (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the cars look funky dude to HDR. —kallerna (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kallerna: I fixed the cars kallerna. thanks--Amirpashaei (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek. --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a stitching error (indicated on note) and yes some of the cars look very odd. You can get most stitching software to output the individual warped frames and you may be able to use a middle-exposure to fix the cars with Photoshop. It is very detailed though a cloudy/sunny sky is problematic for multi-photo panoramas as the lighting changes. The shadowed/bright areas look nice when you see the whole image, but they are less good when studying the detail -- a consistent lighting would probably be better. Wrt processing, it is very constrasty and some areas quite dark. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: thanks for your good criticism and suggestions. I will edit tomorrow and will fix the problems.--Amirpashaei (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition and fascinating to browse at 100% at the same time. - Benh (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Colin: I improved the cars and fixed stitching error. please consider the last upload. thanks for your suggestions.--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ālī Qāpū in golden time.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 15:34:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Amirpashaei, can you comment a bit more about the processing of this work? 25 frames is a lot of frames. Have you used all of them for the whole frame or only portions of it (sky)? what is the time window between the first and last frame? Poco² 10:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info @Poco a poco: picture merged from 25 pictures. but 5 frames. each frame contain 5 pictures from dark to light for HDR. 5 frames located in the center, top left, top right. bottom left and bottom right. because of using tilt shift lens, there is no perspective problem and you don't need to perspective correction in photoshop. It takes 1-2 minutes to take the first and last photos. The center frame could be missed but I captured it because more sharpness. After 15 minutes I captured ali qapu in blue time. same method. No change in position and camera and lens . https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C4%80l%C4%AB_Q%C4%81p%C5%AB_in_blue_time.jpg for monument of this picture (golden time) I used from second picture (blue time) . because monument in low light had more glory. But the sky light of each photo is its own--Amirpashaei (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --Poc o² 21:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Both photos (golden and blue) are very nice to look at as a whole. In detail the quality suffers towards the edge of the frame, which is quite blurred with strong purple CA. There are also some HDR artefacts where bright areas with perhaps a little movement have created an unreal effect. You might be able to rescue those by using a single middle-exposure frame, or by trying to align the exposures better. I don't know what software you use, but in PtGui it can be best to let it align all the frames rather than picking the option where it thinks multiple exposures are already aligned by using a tripod -- with HDR highlights with fine detail, the slightest movement can wreck the tonemapping algorithm. Compared to the blue photo, I see you have Photoshopped out some metalwork on the roofs and the fountain pipe in the middle of the pond. I think those are permanent features you should retain: we are not just trying to create a lovely picture but also to faithfully capture what it looked like. Our best HDR FPs have handled the light better than this, particularly on the left side which appears quite blown. Is the vignetting natural due to the lens or did you add some in processing? I think perhaps if better processed this might pass at FP due to the lovely light, but at the moment there are too many flaws. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: thanks for your good criticism and suggestions. I will edit tomorrow and will fix the problems. --Amirpashaei (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This version is much better --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Per Colin as well --Booth sift Is Here 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now--Booth sift Is Here 02:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ regretfully per Colin, for now at least. I also think it would be better with a tighter crop so there was a bit less featureless space. Cmao20 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I still think it would be better with a tighter crop, but it's good enough for FP now. Cmao20 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: , I improved the picture as you told. I would be happy to report if there is another problem. Thanks for your nice suggestions colin. --Amirpashaei (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. That's a good improvement on the blown areas and HDR issues. Wrt the crop that Cmao20 suggests, it is difficult to crop out the lovely sky with its variation in tone. I think I am fine featuring this crop as people can always made a 3:2 or 16:9 crop from it and upload to a different filename if they want. -- Colin (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak weak support Some strange artifacts at the bottom, a blurred area on the left, and stranges edges (scafolding notably). But otherwise a beautiful composition, and nice colours. - Benh (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Benh: thanks benh. bottom of picture is pond floor and there is some Scratch even in raw files. --Amirpashaei (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1: , @Boothsift: , @Cmao20: I improved the picture as colin told. I would be happy to report if there is another problem. Thanks--Amirpashaei (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: you're right benh. in the pond floor I found some noise because HDR processing and I removed them. thanks. --Amirpashaei (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia Slettebakken, Bergen, Noruega, 2019-09-08, DD 97.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2019 at 06:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View of the particular Slettebakken Church located in the Slettebakken neighborhood, Årstad borough in the city of Bergen, Hordaland county, Norway. It's part of the Slettebakken parish in the Fana deanery in the Diocese of Bjørgvin. The large, concrete, modern-style church was built in 1970 by the architect Tore Sveram. The church, which seats up to 600 people, was consecrated on 20 December 1970 and has become a landmark in the city due to its unique curved roof line. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 06:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. The clouds are distracting and the light is very ordinary. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also think it could be hard to get a really satisfying form out of this building. Some well-placed clouds on the upper left might do it, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO people are being a little harsh on this. It's not my kind of building, but it's certainly architecturally unusual. I'm not really sure how one could produce a more compelling shot of this church; the angle seems good, and the image quality is good as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same. Nothing special. - Benh (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift Is Here 05:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 06:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reading room of the State Library of Massachusetts-9318.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 02:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg - uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 08:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support For moderate wow factor IMHO Poc o² 10:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the person with the lamp hat ruins the composition --Wilfredor (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frank, I'm seeing pixel-level fabric-like textures on things I wouldn't expect to have a texture, such as the pillars. The green wall looks quite blocky and posterised. I wonder if perhaps you have overcooked this one. The lamp-hat is indeed unfortunate. Do you have a frame without it, or that could be used to clone/fix that area? -- Colin (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey Colin, I apologize for not getting back to you earlier. I took the photo as part of the Culture Crawl event during WikiConference North America on Friday. The conference ended today and I honestly didn't have much time taking care of this. I'll fly home from Boston to San Francisco tomorrow and take a closer look. Hopefully, I'll be able to fix the issues that you addressed. Thanks a lot for your feedback, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)--Ermell (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not that wowed--Booth sift Is Here 06:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Boothsift on this one; the wow factor is not there for me. --Peulle (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wow is subtle but it's there for me; however I oppose because per Colin I'm not convinced by the image quality. There's some odd banded textures here and there, and the image as a whole gives the impression of being slightly unsharp and oversharpened to compensate, if that makes sense. Cmao20 (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, a pity. --A.Savin 19:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Boothsift. —kallerna (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination After coming back from the conference and taking a closer look, I agree with the opposers. The image quality isn't good enough and the wow factor on the lower end compared to some of my other work. So, I withdraw. Thanks a lot for the feedback. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edvard Munch - Madonna - Google Art Project.jpg (delist) edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2019 at 14:21:07

Info No need to keep this version featured, because a better quality version of the same artwork recently has been promoted (Original nomination)
Delist --A.Savin 14:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delist per nom. --Cart (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Move to keep per comment below. --Cart (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist --GRDN711 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cmao20 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you all sure these aren't two different works exhibited in two different museums (w:Munch Museum and w:National Gallery (Norway))? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Ikan! I feel silly now for not checking it better. This version has the signature in the upper left corner while it is in the lower left corner on the other one. Even if an artwork can be shot in different lights, I doubt it will move the signature. Since they are two different paintings, I think we can keep them both and I've changed my Delist to Keep. Also 'ping' 4nn1l2, who raised the subject on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the placement of the signatures, but I'm quite familiar with artists doing a sketch or sketchy treatment of a subject and then working on it again as a fully-realized painting. For example, we have at least 4 pastel versions of a composition my father then realized as a very large painting, and every version of the composition is different. I'll vote to Keep, too, as this seems like a good enough picture to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist --Booth sift Is Here 05:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are two different paintings of the same motif, similar to what Van Gogh did with his en:Bedroom in Arles. See en:Madonna (Munch painting) for more versions/interpretations. --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Claus 09:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think keep as well. They are indeed two different paintings. Munch did lots of them. --Peulle (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination OK, neither did I know nor spot it. Thanks for correction. (Still the quality is not very good, but that's not sufficient for removal, I guess) --A.Savin 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dhakeshwari Temple during puja.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2019 at 17:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by RockyMasum - uploaded by RockyMasum - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice colorful scene, but the form isn't really doing anything for me. It feels to me more like an interesting snap to show and tell people about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the image is unsharp, and the colours look entirely artificial to me, at least hopelessly oversaturated. --Kreuz schnabel 18:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Andrei (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan--Booth sift Is Here 02:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture, but the image quality is very low for FPC. Cmao20 (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, low quality. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beautiful ceiling of isa khan tomb.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2019 at 09:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Photoguy ankit - uploaded by Photoguy ankit - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 09:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 09:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Persia, some tips for you: Before you nominate photos, please make sure they are properly categorized (this one was over-categorised), that they have a neutral name (subjective words like "beautiful" should not be included) and take a good look at the FP categories so that the image ends up in the right place if it is promoted. The description on the image page should also be better, neutral and include what actually is in the photo. I've fixed the categories and gallery, the rest is up to you. An FP is not just the photo, it is the texts related to the photo too. As nominator, you are responsible for the photo here at FPC even if it's not your own photo. --Cart (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Just a pet peeve, but I have fixed the typos in your paragraph--Booth sift Is Here 06:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: Yeah, yeah... Shit happens when you edit on a computer with the auto-correct set to Swedish. It's an international site and most of us learn to live with such minor imperfections in the chatter here, since the Wiki policy is to not edit other users posts except to correct faulty codes. --Cart (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't bad, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: and @Ikan Kekek: That was really weird, IDK why I decided to do that. Please forgive me, I seriously don't know what thought popped in my brain--Booth sift Is Here 08:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal to me. I'm an observer here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift and Ikan Kekek: Guys, it wasn't a big deal this time. I just mentioned the policy since it's good to keep in mind in less benevolent discussions. It's easy for the brain to do a crossover since we should correct such things in articles and file descriptions. No hard feelings and my apologies to Persia for this accidental discussion on their nomination. --Cart (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize for making such an unwise decision --Booth sift Is Here 05:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmm, wonder how I missed this earlier. The quality is not perfect, but the ceiling is indeed very beautiful and I think deserves FP. Cmao20 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of Kaikoura Ranges, New Zealand.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 05:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info All by me. It's a view of Kaikoura Ranges, New Zealand. I like the simple composition and the clouds. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome composition and one of the most enjoyable photos I've seen at FPC for some time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. --Kreuz schnabel 08:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice compo Poc o² 10:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice, well-framed. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Basile Morin (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captivating. --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 12:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. Cmao20 (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not convinced about sharpness. --Hockei (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 12:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charents arch-msu-wlm-3093.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2019 at 14:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Armenia
Info created by Matthias Süßen - uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the photo could show a little less noise and a little more depth of field, but the composition, the colours and the general impression convinced me absolutely. -- Smial (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but for me too noisy for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Michiel. If the photo can be substantially denoised, I'd be happy to reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not a perfectionist but it's composition just falling apart --Andrei (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Michielverbeek and Ikan Kekek: I have uploaded a new version. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A spledid view. --Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice view, but the crop is slightly off. Also technical problems. —kallerna (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for uploading the new version. I'll consider whether to abstain, but right now, I'll continue to oppose because it's still quite a lot more noisy than what we usually feature, nowadays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is looking better, but not sharp enough. --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michiel--Booth sift Is Here 02:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but it is noisy. That alone isn't enough to kill it for me, but I also think the crop is very tight at the top, and I'd prefer to see a bit more space there. Cmao20 (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Arch and wall are unsharp and noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Engines Hall, Metropolitan Waterworks Museum-9336.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 02:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#United_States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg - uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different. Unique subject and lighting. I only wish that the bolts on the sides of the main tube were in focus too but still interesting enough to me. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don’t like the flanges being cut off. A slightly wider framing would look much better IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 08:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, a wider framing would not work, as it would add disturbing elements to the picture. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Found a way to deal with this. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support due to the poor DoF, the composition does work for me + the item is original Poc o² 10:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely agree with Kreuzschnabel. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the image and the subject appeals to me, but I agree with Kreuzschnabel that a wider framing would be better. Cmao20 (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. —kallerna (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others -- Karelj (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Kreuzschnabel, Kallerna, Draceane, Uoaei1, Karelj, Daniel Case: I reprocessed the image and applied a wider crop. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You rather replaced it by a different image, making all previous votes questionable. I don’t approve of such alterations during voting period. --Kreuz schnabel 20:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I reverted my change and withdraw. I think I need a break. Thanks for all the feedback. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel, yes, I think you're right. That wasn't my intention. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tre Cime cows 4.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2019 at 11:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna. I just love the facial impression of the cow, and the wagging tail. We have surprisingly few FPs of cattle. —kallerna (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed to our need of more FPs of cattle but this isn’t it IMHO. The frontal view is blunt and uninteresting, even menacing (though I’m not afraid of cows, see here or here), the animal is in the shade before a sunny background, and the background mountain conveys an unintentionally funny impression of elephant ears. --Kreuz schnabel 19:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in addition, we should not promote pictures of cows with cut off horn.--Christof46 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is gained by opposing visual documentation of brutal practices? That seems to me to be an anti-Wikimedian attitude - opposing the spread of information rather than working to spread it far and wide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow for me; sorry --A.Savin 00:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reason why we have so few FPs of cattle is because they're just way too common. Looking at a cattle is not the same as looking at some endangered species like the Northern White Rhinoceros or the vaquita. Thus, for such a common species, a picture of its face is just not there in terms of wow. --Booth sift Is Here 08:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Moreover, the tail is blurred by the movement. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination —kallerna (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:20190303 FIS NWSC Seefeld Men CC 50km Mass Start 850 7458.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 19:53:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by -- Ralf Roletschek 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Die außermittige Fokussierung auf einen einzelnen Sportler, das Abpassen des genau richtigen Augenblicks und etwas Glück schafften hier ein exzellentes Bild. Von vorn bis hinten scharf wäre technisch ohnehin unmöglich und auch keine bessere Lösung. -- Ralf Roletschek 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many of the skiers are out of focus and the scene is too chaotic.--Peulle (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English, please. I don't speak German, and neither do many of the other people on here. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Out of the seeming chaos, a good and interesting, dynamic and eye-fulfilling composition is produced, and it's best seen simply at full-screen size. It has a lot of motion and interesting complexity. I doubt that enough people here would be able to get past notions of how individual human figures "should" be portrayed, so I don't really expect this to be featured, but I think it should be and is a much more interesting composition than we usually see at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Sigma 120-300 in combination with the 1.4x tele converter is not the sharpest and wide open it produces strange halos around contrasting edges in unsharp areas (see e.g. the sunglasses of the other skiers). --Granada (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since you yourself don't consider this an FP, I withdraw my supporting vote, and you as photographer have the right to withdraw the nomination if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's nice work, but the creator doesn't think it's FP, and in this example I think he/she is right about the haloes. Cmao20 (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe technically not perfect, but I love the composition. —kallerna (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny, but no FP for me. Random composition with cut-off feet, the person in the foreground is completely out of focus. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not there for me --Booth sift Is Here 05:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per creator's !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ailurus fulgens - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2019 at 13:56:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Ailuridae_(Red_Pandas)
Info Because awww. More seriously, this is a high-resolution shot with excellent quality of an endangered species, and it's far superior to the existing FPs: this one, which is a similar view of the face alone but which has much lower resolution than this shot, and this one which shows the whole animal but is very low-resolution for an FP nowadays. created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking facial expression -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Cmao20 for the nomination and the laudatio --Llez (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like zoo pictures. They never can outclass wildlife pictures or reach the same status. --Hockei (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; thanks for the review. Personally I don't mind zoo pictures as long as it isn't obvious that this is an unnatural setting, and of course for some less common animals zoos can be the best realistic opportunity to get a high quality image. It is worth noting that both the other FPs of red pandas are also of zoo specimens. Cmao20 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't change my sensation. I'll never support zoo pictures in FPC. This has nothing to do with whether I find the quality bad or good. Certainly are zoo pictures of rare animals and plants valuable and maybe important for documentation. But nothing for FPC in my eyes. BTW, I gave no oppose but a neutral. Although I don't like the background. --Hockei (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van S-charl naar Alp Sesvenna. 10-09-2019. (d.j.b) 14.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 16:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info Mountain tour from S-charl a place in the Swiss canton Graubünden to Alp Sesvenna. View of the mountains from Alp Sesvenna. The freshly fallen snow. The lines and the clouds give this photo an extra dimension for me.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel as if there was something wrong with the white balance. (Too blueish.) — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I agreed that it might be too blue, but honestly I think this is plausible winter lighting, and I love the mood. Cmao20 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @George Chernilevsky, Draceane, and Cmao20: Refinement WB.--Famberhorst (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice view. Thanks for WB fixing. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just an average winter landscape for me. The composition looks quite unbalanced, and the WB of the first version looked more realistic to me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 -- Karelj (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light, not a striking scene. —kallerna (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. I fail to see any clear compositional idea here. Fine scenery but random framing. --Kreuz schnabel 22:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift Is Here 06:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coconut octopus in shell.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2019 at 18:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by q phia - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice catch but the cropped shell at the bottom is an issue --Poc o² 20:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry but I can't help but agree with Poco here. It's interesting and would probably be QI if taken by a Commons user, but for that reason it's not FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Poco -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco--Booth sift Is Here 03:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perth (AU), Elizabeth Quay Bridge -- 2019 -- 0375-9.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2019 at 16:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Australia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 20:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality for a night shot. Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Althought I would like to see the complete base of the right foundation --Llez (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Collegiata dei Santi Nazaro e Celso sagrestia trittico Brescia.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2019 at 21:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The one on the left seems a little glary to me. I doubt this is an FP, but I'll live with it longer. It's very good, but that's not the question to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per George Chernilevsky. Cmao20 (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - IMO not quite an FP, per my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~It is difficult to avoid reflections (like here on the left painting) completely.~~ --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No-one said it should be easy to shoot an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course you are right, and I absolutely did not want to criticize you, I just wanted to say that I (personally) feel that this image is excellent, even when it would be even better without the reflection. But because my comment is cryptic, I have crossed it out (but still support the image). --Aristeas (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left one ruins it for me as per Ikan--Booth sift Is Here 06:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but yes, the reflections on the left one are very disturbing. --Cayambe (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose For me, glare in such a static object in a public place like a church is not acceptable in an FP, especially since it can be avoided by something as simple as a polarizing filter or wait for the sun to move a bit and make a combo of two or three photos (it is after all a triptych, so easy to do in sections) to get the whole piece evenly lit. --Cart (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @W.carter: If you say it‘s so easy in Italian churches I cordially invite you to do better. And, please, look how mandy FPs we have in Italy, and specifically in Brescia. Cheers--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something more, Carter, churches in Italy are not „public places“ --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I stand corrected on that point and I meant no disrespect. But surely a polarizing filter could be used even in a non-public place. Given that you have such a fantastic camera (I am really envious of it!), investing in some filters could be worth doing. I always keep some in my camera bag even if I seldom use them, they are handy to have at times. I have the same opinion as three users before me, yet I'm the one you chose to come down on. --Cart (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: I don't feel disrespect but IMO your comment was a bit, let's say "superficial" or hasty? That's the reason I "came down on you". You probably are not aware how difficult, well it is actually forbidden (I read the conditions to take pictures in the churches of Brescia and they made me feel a criminal) to take high resolution pictures inside the churches in Brescia and publish them on the Internet, for any reason, without written permission. I have a polarising filter, which was sold to me as one of the best (Hoya), and which takes away 2 aperture stops that are gold in such difficult conditions. The filter does'nt make miracles. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let there be peace. I have striked my vote and my comment. You are happy when I make superficial comments and fight for your photos but not when I oppose in the same way. Lesson learned. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity

File:Georges Ernest Boulanger by Atelier Nadar.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2019 at 02:05:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Nadar - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very important historical figure, given that he's the one who "Revanchism" is named after. I wish he was looking at the camera instead of captured in profile, but I guess that was in style then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salzburg Michaelskirche Deckenfresko-4118.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2019 at 22:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Fresco showing the adoration of god in the ceiling of Michels church Salzburg, created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Дві лелеки на снігу.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2019 at 21:59:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info created & uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great pose and unique capture but the image quality (especially sharpness) is not quite at the level of many bird FPs nowadays. Cmao20 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background which is brighter than and similar in color to the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree. The snow background for black and white birds is not working. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Loads of wow, and the background works for me – I have no difficulties to see the birds in front of it. What doesn’t work for me is both heads being out of focus. Pity! --Kreuz schnabel 07:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharpness, it´s a pity! --Isiwal (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift Is Here 03:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek.--Fischer.H (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haeckel Discomedusae 8.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 14:30:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Animals
Info created by Ernst Haeckel - uploaded by Ragesoss - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful illustration of jellyfish by Ernst Haeckel, zoologist, artist, and one of the most influential biologists at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. --Cayambe (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to oppose this, but this is actually pretty good--Booth sift Is Here 02:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very shallow margins with a non-white background -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: That is true and you can kind of tell just by looking here. However, I don't think it's enough to oppose unless someone convinces me otherwise--Booth sift Is Here 05:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support But maybe we could have it in some lossless-compression format? Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this image not in a lossless format? Pbrks (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --C messier (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Others#Animals

File:Nationaal Park Dwingelderveld 20-08-2019 (actm.) 10.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 16:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands
Info National Park Dwingelderveld is a nature reserve in Drenthe. Pinus sylvestris under threatening clouds in a flowering heather field.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I liked this on QIC and still like it. Something I didn't think of then is that a crop on the bottom, if done right, could improve the form. Maybe about a finger's width's height from the bottom at full screen would do it. See what you think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you. I mentioned in QIC that this is probably the nicest of this series that I've seen so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasant enough countryside, but photographically just a QI. Lacks wow. -- Colin (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I enjoy the colors but per Colin Poc o² 09:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly. Cmao20 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason for FP nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A textbook example on the rule of thirds :) but not that special in my eyes. Please clone/crop out the twigs on the right edge. --Kreuz schnabel 07:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Twigs removed. Thank you for your attention.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Subdued soothing colors that works well with the bleak landscape. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. —kallerna (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin -- Karelj (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trappist Beer 2013-08-31.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2019 at 15:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Drink
Info created by Philip Rowlands - uploaded by Philip Rowlands - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 15:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus 15:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the focus to the Achel is not well done --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Michiel - I like the composition, and the focus on the sides, though not pinpoint, is IMO not bad. We use this photo on Wikivoyage's article on alcoholic beverages. I'm surprised it's not a VI. It seems like it should be nominated to VIC in the scope Trappist beers, regardless of the results here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - P.S. I concluded another photo with a greater number of beers in it was a more appropriate VI in this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm just not impressed with the quality. There is back focus. "Orval" beer is well in focus, but other are little blurry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Booth sift Is Here 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good, valuable for illustrative purposes, but the focus is not good enough for FP IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woolsey Fire - tree ridge in flames 20181119-PB-008.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2019 at 11:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fire
Info created by Peter Buschmann, United States Forest Service, USDA - uploaded, some additional editing and nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking photo of a terrible event. Some parts are a little noisy, but given the size of the photo and the conditions for shooting it, I think it's ok. Applying noise reduction will only make it blotchy and the 'grain' goes well with the motif. -- Cart (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive and frightening, concerning noise I agree with Cart --Isiwal (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Better a bit noisy than mush. --Aristeas (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 05:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty good depiction of Hell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, you and the photographer had the same thought. Another one of his photos from that fire had the original title "Sunset in Hell". --Cart (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised and wouldn't have thought my reaction was original. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elizabeth Glendower Evans (cropped).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2019 at 02:02:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by The Washington Times - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like that in this profile, some of her character seems to come through. I feel a stoicism, weariness of having to keep fighting, perhaps, but a great strength and determination. I don't remember seeing a portrait of a woman from that period wearing a corduroy blouse or dress, but she is also wearing a kind of hat that was stylish at the time. I think she would have been a very interesting person to have a conversation with, if she could have spared the time in between all of her important work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de San Ildefonso, Oporto, Portugal, 2019-06-02, DD 32-34 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2019 at 06:38:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info Night view of the church of Saint Ildefonso, Porto, Portugal. It was completed in 1739 and built in a proto-Baroque style with a façade of 1932 azulejo tilework. The church is named in honour of the Visigoth, Ildephonsus of Toledo, bishop of Toledo from 657 until his death in 667. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 06:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "proto"-baroque? This church is as baroque as baroque gets --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The white tiles at the bottom left of the facade (around “Fides”) are a bit overexposed; is it possible to dial down the highlights there a bit (locally)? --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aristeas: Done Poc o² 21:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: Thank you very much! IMHO your photo is even better now (if that is possible, as it was already quite perfect before ;–)). --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality image and a nice complement to your existing daytime FP of this church. Cmao20 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 12:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mountain child.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2019 at 08:35:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Salar.arkan - uploaded by Salar.arkan - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very striking - an excellent portrait. Good background in the file description, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the combination of the portrait with the view of the village – a good environmental portrait of a child in the world it lives in. --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Aristeas. At first, I had my doubts about the file title from an encyclopedic point of view, but on second thought I think it sums up the photo nicely. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we rename? --Andrei (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary, let's see if someone else brings it up. --Cart (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly bothered by the top-down angle, but not enough to stop me from supporting. Good wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but no metadata -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 11:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another National Geographic-level shot Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puente de Don Luis I, Oporto, Portugal, 2019-06-02, DD 29-31 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2019 at 06:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info View of the Dom Luís I Bridge in the Douro River and the city of Porto during the blue hour from Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 06:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's beautiful. I'm not much bothered by the places that are blown out on the near bank from all the floodlights, but I'm wondering if you could dial back the building on the far bank with blueish light a little bit and recover some details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: I've reduced the highlights in that area Poc o² 21:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a significant difference on the building below the one with the blueish light, not on that building itself, which looks exactly the same to me. In general, you seem to have reduced highlights on buildings that already were not very light and benefited from the additional light, not appreciably from buildings or areas of buildings that were extremely bright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - That said, I agree with the others that both versions are FPs. Play with the brightest highlights more if you like, though. You might be able to improve the photo further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ikan I didn't get your point, I uploaded a new version now with a reduction of the higlights of the white building at the top left Poc o² 20:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That did recover some details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent. There is one area where there is a little bit of aliasing going on, which I have made a note for. Cmao20 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, right. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 03:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 12:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2018 - Christiansborg from the Marble Bridge.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2019 at 16:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Denmark
Info created and uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent quality, even for an FP, beautiful architecture and streaming clouds, very relaxing to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 11:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Streaky clouds due to long exposure add just the right touch of magic. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Close-up view of a bioluminescent beetle Elateroidea.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 00:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_(Beetles)
Info Bioluminescent beetle Elateroidea. This larva measures 20 mm (0.79 in). Very difficult to set precisely the focus of a macro lens in the darkness with such a small moving animal. My first attempt one week earlier was not so successful, but I got that video. Very often also the animal just stops emitting its light (like here).This picture was taken at 2 am. Single long-exposure shot (1.3 s) aperture F/10 and 1000 ISO, the best compromise I could get. Bioluminescent beetle species are in regression in the World because of the phenomenon of light pollution. Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive, considering its size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As per Ikan. Beautiful Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Bijay. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 06:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, again, for the description Poc o² 10:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing - Benh (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely not something you see every day! Cmao20 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, DOF too shallow and it looks at least partially posterized to me. --Hockei (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 12:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_(Beetles)

File:Ebrach Kirche rose window Orgel P4252411efs.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2019 at 23:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Seufert organ from 1743 and rosette window in the former abbey church in Ebrach. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, could you add the template {{panorama}} in the descritpion page to indicate how many frames were used? Poc o² 10:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: This is not a panorama. The picture was taken in high resolution shot (HRS) mode where the sensor moves to catch more pixel. Works only with a trypod.--Ermell (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image looked a bit odd to me in close up. I had a peek at the EXIF and you have got very high values for colour NR settings, which would tend to reduce detail and create a plastic effect. Compare our existing FP File:Kloster Ebrach BW 5.JPG which despite lower resolution, looks more realistic and natural on the figures and carvings. I've never had to raise Lightroom's standard level of Colour NR in my own photos, only touching Luminance NR when required. -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I know the picture, of course. The rosette alone is not that difficult. If you take the organ into the picture it is always too dark because the church only has windows in the upper part. I have summarized three differently exposed pictures using LRenfuse. The smoothing of the edges of the window took some time.--Ermell (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enfuse isn't the best program for HDR. You might be better off trying Lightroom's own tool (if you have a current version) but the best I have found is PtGui and then taking the 32-bit TIFF back into LR. If you want me to experiment for you, drop me an email with a link to the raw files and I'll send you back a JPG. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I assumed this high resolution JPG was the result of a stitched HDR. Rather it is actually using the high-resolution mode of the camera. I think it is remarkable that one raw file could be processed to capture the dynamic range here. However, the actual resolution captured by the 24-200mm (equivalent) super-zoom lens is much lower than the 78MP presented here. Some effort has been made to increase the apparent sharpness, but at the expense of a loss of realism and too much NR. So, for this kind of scene, I still think "our finest" techniques are stitched HDR, and this image looks a bit too over-cooked for my taste. I think therefore my vote is

Oppose despite having some remarkable qualities. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, a version of PtGui for comparison could have been really interesting. However, thank you very much for the offer of editing and the extensive evaluation.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PtGui needs several exposures to generate an HDR file. I think it does a better job than Lightroom's own HDR . If you had taken several exposures (with exposure bracketing) then we could have tried this. As it is, I'm impressed that you got the detail out of the window on this one exposure. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin. Too strong NR, and weird tones rendering. - Benh (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some valid criticism of the strong noise reduction above, but it's OK for me given the very high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 05:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin's points might be valid, but do not outweigh the overall qualities of the picture for me (balanced exposure, great detail). --Axel ^(talk) 12:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leonia mammillaris compacta 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2019 at 02:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by and uploaded by Llez - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift Is Here 02:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift Is Here 02:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 1.6 cm? Yes!! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Booth sift for the nomination (@ Ikan Kekek: the smallest shell of my collection has 0,7 mm!) --Llez (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I know. I've seen photos of smaller shells than this from you, including some at FPC, but this is still pretty small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht in de omgeving van bergdorp S-charl 17-09-2019. (d.j.b) 12.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 15:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Farmers clear away the electric wires mid-September. The cattle has been brought down. This "still life" lay next to the mountain path in the grass.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I'm really not seeing anything beyond a documentary photo at QI. The composition doesn't seem to go beyond "Point camera at subject and press click". I think we really need more apparent consideration of angle-of-view, distance-to-subject and lighting. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment.. An explanation of the photo. The materials lay in the grass as the photo shows. I have not moved anything nor touched anything. (they are someone else's stuff). The corner has been thought about. The reel is taken in perspective. To make the different roles of fencing wire visible. The corner of the posts go from the middle left to the top right. At an angle of approximately 20 degrees. The colors have been kept as authentic as possible. There was no question of arbitrariness when taking this photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure you did consider the composition, which is why I said "we really need more apparent consideration of" -- it isn't coming out in the photo. -- Colin (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have to agree with Colin on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow at all. This is just too ordinary, a top-down view of something in the grass. Looks a bit overexposed on the yellow rods, or are they really bleached out like this? --Kreuz schnabel 09:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I really don't understand this nomination. I'm afraid this is one of the least interesting subjects I've seen here for a long time, and artistically this is very poor also in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casa en Moñúx, Soria, España, 2017-05-23, DD 47.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2019 at 13:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Spain
Info An unusual shot, but I find enough interest in the shapes and colours here to make it IMO a solid choice for a feature. See what you think. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, nice catch, than you for the nom Cmao20! Poc o² 20:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Quite nice except the crop at the left, a bit tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Isiwal (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special and not really sharp. --Hockei (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you don't think it's anything special, as wow is subjective and this isn't an obvious case, but I'm not really sure about the idea that it's not sharp. It seems very sharp to me; can you perhaps be specific about where you can see unsharpness? Cmao20 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Nice house and flowers but not really a "wow" for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hockei. —kallerna (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hockei -- Karelj (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hockei --Booth sift Is Here 03:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not per Hockey. I like the coulours. The crop at the left is a bit thght, but I can live with it --Llez (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination This nomination was always a risk, as it's an image where the 'wow' is very subjective. I still like it and think it works really well as a slice of life, but it is clearly not going to make it. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of a pier in Akaroa, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 05:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Other_architectural_elements
Info All by me. It's a detail of the pier in Akaroa. I just like it, I find it quite nice to look at. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly nice to look at but little wow to me. Mediocre quality, rather uninteresting flat perspective. --Kreuz schnabel 08:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really enjoy moving my eyes around this. How do you find it if you consider it a composition of lines and forms like a work of abstract flat art? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...although I understand the idea it doesn't still wow me Poc o² 10:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Fischer.H (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support These are pictures that we see too little here! In my opinion, the quality is excellent.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Famberhorst --Llez (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco.--Ermell (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)}[reply]
Oppose Poco --Booth sift Is Here 06:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose technically excellent, interesting textures, but not a wow image --Isiwal (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and sharpness is not very good, sorry. --Hockei (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco -- Karelj (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was one of Cart's. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case It's certainly inspired by her work. You can also see that the ratio of oppose vs support votes is also Cart's like :) --Podzemnik (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm obviously not a good example to follow if you want to gather stars on this forum. ;) --Cart (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the charm of decay of that old wood. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funkturm Arsenal Blitze.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 06:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Just curious how well this will do. created by and uploaded by Linie29 - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift Is Here 06:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift Is Here 06:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d like to see more of the lightning bolt. It’s not even clear to me if the tower is actually hit or the lightning fades behind it (as the upper branch does). Little wow. --Kreuz schnabel 07:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: Yeah, for that reason, I'm not expecting very good results. I don't know if Linie can fix this--Booth sift Is Here 08:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: I just rotated the image (~ 1-2° clockwise), that's why there is not much more to see. Linie29 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It works for me. --Dinkum (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just the right moment --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would be helpful if @Linie29: updated the file to mention the changes made in Photoshop.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Kreuzschnabel. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Official Portrait.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 19:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by US House of Representatives - uploaded by Wafflepancake34 - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 19:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 19:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good portrait of a person very much in the limelight at the moment (time will tell if she actually ends up being an important historical figure in the long term). --Peulle (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The source link now produces a different photo. How should that be handled, and do you think the new photo is better? I'd have to see it blown up to the same size, but on the face of it, I tend to think it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the old one was made by Franmarie Metzler; U.S. House Office of Photography (according to EXIF), so the assumption of {{PD-USGov}} is reasonable. The new one does not contain any information on author ~~or copyright status, so until that is cleared up I would not recommend uploading it here. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)~~ Nevermind: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/copyright --El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not a bad portrait. As far as I can tell with my non-existing experience in portrait photography, it's reasonably well lit (apart from that shadow of the collar), sharp where it needs to be sharp, and her facial expression looks fine as well. I'd probably support this at VI or Wikipedia FP, but for Commons FP I feel a bit under-wowed. I mean, in the end it is just another formal portrait of someone in front of a US flag. We've got hundreds, maybe thousands of these, and I don't see what makes this one so special for it to be considered among the best of the best at Common. It's good, but not awesome. --El Grafo (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree El Grafo Seven Pandas (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo --Booth sift Is Here 05:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of my heroes, and I'd love to support a great picture of her. This picture, as others have said, is good but not great. I think there will be a better one that can be nominated. She's very photogenic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, well-done but bland, as indeed many U.S. congressional portraits are meant to be. I personally like taking pictures, and seeing pictures, of politicians in action—speaking, campaigning etc. They're more dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Its a tile wall.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2019 at 20:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other architectural elements
Info created by Luís Gaspar - uploaded by Luís Gaspar - nominated by Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar -- Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a better description and to be categorized. Please read: Commons:Categorias --Cart (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for de comment
Strong oppose I might be a complete moron but I fail to see anything special in this shot in terms of composition, lighting, or technical skills. --Kreuz schnabel 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Andrei (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Luís Gaspar, since you are a new user on Commons, jumping right in at the deep end with FPC might not be such a good idea. I would recommend that you start with Commons:Photography critiques for feedback on your photos and then move on to Quality Images for further feedback and guidance about how photos are viewed and what to expect here. For more tips and hints, please take a look at COM:PT and see if you can pick up some info. --Cart (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment and yes im new here and i still learning how wikimedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This subject is of only slight interest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers above. --Cayambe (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a handprint on a wall. --Booth sift Is Here 06:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mangart 17.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 16:03:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot. But the shadow on the rock is too dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not too dark for me. Excellent form to my eyes, and I really enjoy the variety of colors and shapes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good dramatic shot to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do agree with Famberhost --Poc o² 20:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A quite common view from a mountain while moderate visibility conditions. Not outstanding for me. --Milseburg (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Famberhorst. Too harsh contrast; it’s a nice scene but not the best lighting of it. Plus I think there’s simply too much within the frame. Concentrate on the winding road on the left, or the arête in center, that might make an impressive FP. --Kreuz schnabel 07:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the comments. I like the complex composition, but do you prefer this (or this)? —kallerna (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture (could probably work a bit the contrast, reduced the highlights and increase a tad the shadow), however I'm pretty sure this would be wonderful if printed in large. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've no problem with the shadow. --Hockei (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 05:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Famberhorst, The strong shadow on the mountain makes it look more like a hole in the middle of the photo than a mountain. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great scenery with boring light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apis mellifera - Prunus padus - Keila.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 17:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info all by Ivar (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I couldn't decide about your other recent bee picture nomination, but this one is definitely impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift Is Here 05:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 12:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hacienda San Jorge - Los Cancajos 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2019 at 21:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info This time not a panorama of a natural but of a mainly man-made landscape; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 我觉得这张照片非常棒 --Booth sift Is Here 02:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this tourism place to see is just cruel for my eyes and awareness of life. Nothing what I must see. --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: That's a bit unfair. You're opposing this not because of the image but you have something against touristy places. --Booth sift Is Here 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting point of view while my reasoning outweighs for example "no wow", "nothing special" and so on who are constantly stated and accepted here. --Hockei (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not quite the same. Here u r implying that no matter how this is shot, you'll oppose. Which is unfair, yes. - Benh (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could sing a song about unfairness here. But this is not unfair but a valid reason. --Hockei (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: Valid? Then all the buildings are invalid then, correct? This vote shouldn't count, do you realize what you are saying? --Booth sift Is Here 02:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I already said: It is a manmade landscape --Llez (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llez: Look at the red panda nomination, Hockei has something against things that seem "artificial". Don't ask me why--Booth sift Is Here 03:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Boothsift, is it really necessary to incite him against me just because I have a different opinion than you? Must that really turn to personal? --Hockei (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: No, I was just explaining how you feel. I understand what you're saying on the zoo nomination, how you think it is not as "natural" as wildlife photos in the wild. That makes sense here as this hotel is clearly manmade. --Booth sift Is Here 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. I think it is the best to finish this discussion --Llez (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regard to Hockei's remark about empty remarks such as "no wow" or "nothing special" without further explanation, I agree with him! You can't do anything about that. You don't learn from that either! The guidelines are clear about this. I quote: Useless reasons for resistance include: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty reviews! So you have to take the trouble to motivate your rejection. Don't you do that. Then I think the rejection is not valid. Regarding the photo above: I have nothing to do with such a swimming paradise. Can't judge the photo in a neutral way. In such a case I do not vote. Then I won't harm anyone.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Shadow left of center is distracting to me; there's also an apparent stitching error on the lamppost near the right side at center. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Stiching error removed --Llez (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift Is Here 07:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of Paul Trappen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2019 at 22:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by anonymous photographer (c. 1915), restored, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How big is the original? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
14.7 cm x 10.4 cm --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you. It still looks quite good at something like 32x22 cm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like this strong man is going to break the frame of the photo ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong vote The interesting thing for me is this "World's strongest man" doesn't look that strong today according to our current standards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- They also didn't take steroids in those days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They also had weird haircuts :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No steroids, but he was a butcher and it's told that he drank one liter of pig blood every day. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either you drink milk like everybody, or you really want to be the strongest :-) Basile Morin (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift Is Here 07:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chiesa di San Francesco d'Assisi altare Incoronazione Vergine Brescia.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 09:50:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Part of the painting is extremely bright, but maybe it should be! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an amazing scene, but it doesn't strike me as looking realistic. The contrast appears very high and the darks at the bottom appear crushed. I looked at the EXIF and see some odd values. Clarity is +28 which may work for a low-contrast scene but can be a little too high for interiors. Texture (essentially clarity at a finer resolution) is +47 which appears very high. And Dehaze is +71 which I find extremely odd. There should be little reason to use dehaze in an interior scene like this, and that value must surely be the cause of the overcooked appearance. There is a danger with these Lightroom controls in that they are like salt in a meal. It makes it taste better at first, but too much spoils it. Otherwise the scene is high resolution and sharp and the subject featurable. I would however, prefer a more modest processing. -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for now. A really beautiful and striking photo! But I agree with Colin that less Clarity, Texture, and espec. Dehaze should make your image even better by giving it a more realistic appearance. --Aristeas (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Colin and Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The upper part of the photo is too blue for my taste and I think it looks different in the original. Colin is right with his critical analysis, but FP is right for me.--Ermell (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose precisely per Colin – overprocessed, looking unreal. It’s certainly possible to get a less "optimized" version of the source material. --Kreuz schnabel 09:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, the post-processing is not well done. --Cart (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Collin. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support maybe a bit too blue ?, but OK for me --Isiwal (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mangalem Berat Albania 2018.2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 17:14:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Mangalem, part of the town Berat, central Albania, created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please take care of the dirt/dust spots in the sky, and have your sensor cleaned some time :) --Kreuz schnabel 17:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spots in the sky jump into the eye and exclude FP. Is the mast with the flag really so tilted? Looks distorted to me. Both sides are leaning in. Resolution is quite low. --Milseburg (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition is not great, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small. Downsized? Perspective problem (not vertical). Spots in the sky and very average composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with others. It's a pretty town but the size is very low for an FP of this kind, and the composition is not very special. Cmao20 (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all supporters. --Karelj (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Bartolomé, Lago del Rey, Alemania, 2019-05-17, DD 21.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2019 at 20:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info View of St. Bartholomew's Church, a Roman Catholic pilgrimage church in the Berchtesgadener Land, Bavaria, Germany. The church, named after Saint Bartholomew the Apostle, patron of alpine farmers and dairymen, is located at the shore of the Königssee lake. It can only be reached by ship or after a long hike across the surrounding mountains. A first chapel at the lake was built in 1134 by the Provosts of Berchtesgaden and rebuilt in 1697 in a Baroque style. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So picturesque, but can we see all or at least more of the reflection, or is the photo already up against the near bank? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, well composed shot; I don't mind not seeing the reflections here, as it's more important to me that we can see the mountains properly. There's a little bit of purple CA on some of the mountains in the distance that you could maybe reduce. Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually a wider crop is used for this very well-known view. Looks a bit overexposed to me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After reading that, I just searched for FPs in this category, and there is one, by Martin Falbisoner, and its form really breathes where this one doesn't. And it also answers the question I asked above: There is nothing at all preventing the entire reflection of the church from being visible, except the photographer's choice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - After seeing Martin's picture, I have to oppose this one by comparison per my comments above. It's an interesting photo, but the composition doesn't appeal to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral nice view, but imo too bright and the church is too close to the lower border. I would prefer a crop of a size somewhere between this picture and Martin´s FP. --Isiwal (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, existing FP. —kallerna (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also prefer Martin's composition, exposure and processing. The contrast on this one is turned up too high. -- Colin (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A famous motif, but the execution is not so well done here. The snowfields are too bright, and especially on the right, a lot of unnatural color fringes are around them. --Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overdone, too bright. --Kreuz schnabel 21:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nowruz 2017 in Bisaran, Kurdistan province.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2019 at 21:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info A grandma and her grandchild watching “Nowruz” ceremony. This photo was taken in 2017 in one of the Kurdistan villages. Besaran Village, Kurdistan, Iran. Created by Salar.arkan - uploaded by Salar.arkan - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like a dramatic photo with a story. Also an excellent focus to the two people - wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek. --Aristeas (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I said at QI. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eyes like mill wheels.--Ermell (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An iconic photograph to me --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Another one that hits the National Geographic level. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:L'alis profil.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 08:12:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
Info created by Frédéric Ducarme - uploaded by FredD - nominated by FredD (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support (uploader) Not so many oceanographic vessels in this category, all the more out from a port (and in such remote places). I found the light and water nice enough for a submission to this label. -- FredD (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the quality isn't good --A.Savin 14:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a pleasing enough photo, with nice reflection in the calm water, but not sufficient wow or strengths for FP. The centred composition of what appears to be a non-moving boat is rather static. The horizon is a little bit titled. It should be fine for QI IMO, but others may disagree. The compact camera has a tiny sensor compared to most of the cameras used for FP, so it will struggle to match the quality. FP does allow for technical weaknesses if there is enough wow, but there isn't here. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Colin on all counts. Good, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the quality is too bad, but I'd like to see something a little more imaginative composition-wise for FP. The reflection just isn't quite enough. Cmao20 (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colin and Cmao--Booth sift Is Here 02:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin; also too bright for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Building at Caldas da Rainha.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2019 at 21:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info created by Luís Gaspar - uploaded by Luís Gaspar - nominated by Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar -- Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a better description and categories. Please read: Commons:Categorias --Cart (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light & blown sky, insufficient sharpness, perspective distortion. I see the idea of the winding elements but this is certainly not the best shot that could ever be taken of it. --Kreuz schnabel 15:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Andrei (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's an interesting idea here in terms of the contrasting shapes, but as it is it suffers from the issues Kreuzschnabel mentions. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly there’s an interesting idea here. However, on FPC we don’t judge ideas, we do judge photographic work, which is the skilled elaboration of good ideas. --Kreuz schnabel 11:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuz--Booth sift Is Here 06:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, I apologize for my English. This comment is not a criticism of all who have judged my photos, rather on the contrary, I appreciate the sincerity and capabilities of all, and the works of most of their authors. Nor do I intend to justify the quality of the photographs I have submitted. I just want to point out that by aesthetic/conceptual option, I do not make any modification of the photos (colors, perspective, contrasts, framings, etc.). This don’t means that i do not admire the work of some photographers who use to do post production or use software that integrates multiple images (macros, interior of temples, etc.), only that my aesthetic option is different. Thank you all. Luis Gaspar--[[User:Luís Gaspatr|]
  - Comment What counts here is nothing but the resulting image. There’s no plus or minus score for the technique used to produce it, so you won’t earn a bonus for your decision to not post-produce your images :) --Kreuzschnabel 21:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I know that :) :) --[[User:Luís Gaspar]
Oppose, per Kreuzschnabel; time to withdraw nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination [[User:Luís Gaspar]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift Is Here 07:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama vom Böllat.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2019 at 15:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info Panoramic view (220°) from the viewpoint Böllat on the Swabian Jura, including some summits of the Alps on an outstanding clear day. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Sorry to do this as I very much like a lot of your work, but this doesn't do a lot for me. It's great quality and interesting, but I don't think it's outstanding in terms of either lighting or composition. It's just not a very exciting day in terms of light conditions, and the sweep of the panorama seems a little bit random. (For what it's worth I quite often have this objection to very wide panoramas, that they have no real clear focus.) Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Technically well done and the compositional balance shows careful thought. Unfortunately, not enough wow for me. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not as jaded as you guys. With a panorama that extensive and sharp, I don't really care that much about the overall composition, because I'm too busy looking at the details and enjoying them. This kind of work still wows me and merits a star, in my opinion! Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It’s hard to set into words why I think this is both fascinating and not featurable. Quality is brilliant, but then mostly per Cmao20 – there's no clear message here, this picture doesn’t "talk" to me, it just conveys loads and loads of visual information on a fine clear day. Might be a matter of taste about what makes an image "special", but since you asked for our opinion, well, there’s mine. The dark part on the left is a bit distracting; I think it would work better without that, though that means outcropping the Alps. Technically it’s a bit oversharpened I’m afraid (see Plettenberg transmitter tower). --Kreuz schnabel 06:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. There are some vertical stripes or banding in the sky, hard to see, but irritating; I suggest to remove them. --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack for good lighting and composition -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The message for use in any project is: This is the complete outlook from this quite prominent viewpoint on a day with outstanding good visibility. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be the case, but that doesn't raise it to being a photograph where lighting, subject and composition all combine to make it among our finest. -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really a dramatic landscape, the shadow at left and the almost oversharpening take it out of FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Etty - Male Nude, Kneeling, from the Back - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2019 at 14:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Nudes
Info created by William Etty - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 14:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 14:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/People#Nudes

File:Московский Кремль, вид с Дома на набережной.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 17:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Russia
Info created by Semyon Borisov — uploaded by Niklitov — nominated by Niklitov -- Niklitov (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Niklitov (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very sharp and interesting photo, but unfortunately too soft for a support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Michielverbeek --Andrei (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You guys have a point, but I love this composition. Semyon, do you think you might be able to sharpen the middleground buildings a bit without making things worse? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with others. Additionally, I don't think that is the best spot to take a picture of the Moscow Kremlin. --A.Savin 02:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not very nice, the shadow at the bottom a bit too dominant, and I find the view average -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Excellent composition and interesting view but there are question marks over image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of artefacts.--Peulle (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and A.Savin. The color is weird ... reminds me of a photo you might have seen in a cheaply printed magazine in the early 1960s. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Храм Христа Спасителя в сентябре 2019 года.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 17:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
Info created by Semyon Borisov — uploaded by Niklitov — nominated by Niklitov -- Niklitov (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Niklitov (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, sorry --A.Savin 02:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building is fascinating but this is not the best shot that could have been taken of it. Stunning level of details but sharping has been entirely overdone causing visible artifacts, there are blown whites in the clouds, the edge before sky looks as if it has been cut out poorly, and there are certainly better viewing angles than this one with the bridge obstructing and lamp posts before it. --Kreuz schnabel 09:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel--Andrei (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Cart (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fascinating building with a really interesting history, but per Kreuzschnabel there are quality issues, and it looks quite overexposed to me. This would IMO be an FP quality image of the building, though others may disagree. Cmao20 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzscnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modi Khola (River) -IMG 4592.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 12:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry and straightforward composition. Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This top-down view does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top-down view does work for me to depict a steep course of a stream, and motion-blurred water is also fine, because IMO, the whole point is to depict the power of gravity acting on water. What's not fine to me is blurred foliage, rocks and dirt. Especially toward the top of the picture frame, some of it is very blurred indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Dinkum (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Pope Caldwell (restoration).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2019 at 11:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info Created by Harris & Ewing. All the rest by Coffeeandcrumbs -- --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please make an argument for this photo or let us know why you picked it. Probably not because of the great historical significance of the congressman, if w:C. Pope Caldwell is any indication. Just because it's a good portrait? It is, and that might be enough of a reason (it's growing on me and I may vote for it), but I'd like to see you make the argument about why you support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely nominated more because of the quality of the image and the notable photographers Harris & Ewing. The subject is not a particularly notable person, but he was a U.S. Congressman for 6 years. The photograph shows a lot of detail for 1915 and more than any other Harris & Ewing portrait I have seen here. As far as I can tell, they don't often do such close ups: Category:Harris & Ewing Collection. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's something haunting about his facial expression, too. I'll Support. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a helpful comparison, here are all three FPs we have by Harris & Ewing: File:Alice Paul (1915) by Harris & Ewing.jpg, File:Hollow Horn Bear LCCN 2016858434 (2) (cropped).jpg, and File:Senator George P. Wetmore of Rhode Island in a Krieger electric automobile.jpg. Zooming in on Hollow Horn Bear's portrait shows this photo is of much better detail and not scratched as they often did for newspaper publication. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- GeXeS (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gletsjerpad naar de Morteratschgletsjer 12-09-2019. (d.j.b) 28.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 07:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info This granite stone is split by mechanical weathering. The black crystals absorb more heat than the white crystals. The black Crystals expand. The stone breaks
I don't think this picture will make it. But I keep trying to promote such fantastic natural phenomena..
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm ignorant on this subject. Is this a natural phenomenon, or was the rock intentionally split (by humans)? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frost weathering or more commonly called 'frost shattering' up here in the north during cold weather is a natural phenomena, but people here took advantage of the process before we had explosives. If you want to get rid of a big stone, you light a fire on and around it to heat it, and then cool it down fast with icy water, getting the rock to crack into smaller more manageable parts. Since this rock remains, it is a case of a natural process. --Cart (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Interesting enough and a good enough composition to support, IMO. I'd like to change "granite" to lowercase in the caption, though, and I don't know how to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Thanks for your reviews.
Support Simple and special -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I never heard the phrase "mechanical weathering" and the cut looks too straight to be natural and those two rocks in the middle have no where to fall from but none of that affects its FP quality. Seven Pandas (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rocks in the gap have probably been placed there to keep it open and to prevent people from climbing onto and into the stone to take selfies. These rocks can rock/roll back and the gap gets narrower. You don't want to be caught in that. --Cart (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember learning about this in geography lessons years ago - we called it 'freeze-thaw weathering' back then. Certainly interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm all broken up about this one ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you already sought help?--Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red dragonfly in Abuja 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2019 at 12:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info created by Kritzolina - uploaded by Kritzolina - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely ugly wire, too large crop -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wire is not something I want to look at, the rest of the composition is fine.--Booth sift Is Here 03:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - IMO, so what if the wire is ugly? Beauty and the Beast is probably an age-old theme, but in this case, it's the beast that is beautiful. Very high-quality and an interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. —kallerna (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not opposed to the beauty-of-nature vs ugliness-of-technology theme, but here the cable dominates the picture. --Axel ^(talk) 11:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Axel. Useful and good quality but the cable is just too distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI probably but the composition isn't FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clear water of Piges Krias (Πηγές Κρύας).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2019 at 00:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info A picture I found unique. created by Andreas P - uploaded by Andreas P - nominated by Andreas P –Aνδρέας ^talk^|^{contributions} 00:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Aνδρέας ^talk^|^{contributions} 00:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I guessed before checking that this was a smartphone photo. The quality of the picture, which is well below FP quality, tipped it off. It's a good smartphone pic, but that's not the standard here. Blown highlights, and the water should look sharper for an FP. Aside from that, the scene is certainly nice but the composition isn't particularly outstanding for this type of subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, and per Ikan Kekek -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile – poor quality, harsh light, and cluttered composition. Not even QI for me. The nominator should keep in mind that FPC is about labeling the very best images there are on Commons. While the clear water is nice, it covers but a small part of the frame and is mostly in deep shadow; the composition does not draw the viewer’s attention towards the subject. I really can’t see any outstanding or excellent photographic work here to place this image among our very best. --Kreuz schnabel 06:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's pretty and I like the clear water, but I disagree that it's especially unique. You can go to any number of towns and find a stream like this to take a snap of. The image quality is not very good, as expected from a smartphone photo, which rarely produce sufficient quality for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is certainly a nice spot but the technical limits of a smartphone photo are evident here. --Dinkum (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift Is Here 02:44, 19 November 2019 (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: issues mentioned above --Kreuz schnabel 18:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Midvinterblot (Carl Larsson) - Nationalmuseum - edited.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2019 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Paganism
Info created by Carl Larsson - original photo by Swedish National Museum of Fine Arts - edited, uploaded and nominated by W.carter.

This is one of the most noted paintings in Sweden. It is actually rectangular, but it is almost never photographed or depicted that way since it was made for this grand hall and the artist intended for it so be seen like this, framed by the arch of the ceiling. It is also very tricky to photograph the full painting due to the architecture of the hall. Given how important the painting is, I was surprised at only finding murky shots. I worked with the TIF from Nationalmuseum since it was better and had more information than the Google art file. I think this is the best way to show the painting, with as little as possible of the distracting hall, but with some of the arch included for context. -- Cart (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cart (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am very impressed by your description --Andrei (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done! --Gnosis (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 00:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo, especially given the difficult situation (cf. nomination and photos of the hall). --Aristeas (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good editing. --Axel ^(talk) 11:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating painting with lots to look at. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aggressive cut with too much thing space, dynamic range lost in some areas in the shadow compensation procedure --Wilfredor (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Religion#Paganism

File:Rawlinna (AU), Indian Pacific Express -- 2019 -- 0597.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2019 at 06:55:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have a lot of train FPs, and this one I feel is missing something to be considered one of the best on Commons. Just looks like a good QI to me.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree. QI and VI if nominated, but not a great composition like, for example, some of Kabelleger's pictures of trains in gorgeous panoramas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot and a quality QI, but per Ikan and Peulle I've seen better-composed train photos. Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I see ... and agree. --XRay ^talk 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stata Center (05773p).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2019 at 22:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info stitched from four frames, created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the rear of the Stata Center building at MIT, designed by Frank Gehry. I took several shots of this building while there last week and selected this one because it's a less common perspective and captures a mix of styles the building incorporates. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good architect, good image! --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is not the best angle of view of this building.--Claus 06:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great architecture on the building but the shady foreground does not make it look favourable. You’ll certainly find a better lighting for this. Architecture photographs should be crisp sharp and noise-free, so a tripod is highly recommendable :) --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of your other shots, I think File:Stata Center (05689p).jpg has FP potential. --Kreuz schnabel 07:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Cart (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel and W.carter: Thanks. So I actually have two uploads built from the same 10 frames, that one and File:Stata Center (05689p)2.jpg. I decided to use two different stitching modes, work on both images, and see which one I liked better. I didn't intend to upload both, actually, because to my eyes the proportions of the second one are closer to what I remember it looking like (the top of the first one appears a bit squished, and the end result is quite a bit smaller, too). But that makes me curious why the first one stood out? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the yellow building is too prominent in File:Stata Center (05689p)2.jpg for no good reason. The first one is simply easier on the eye. --Cart (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter and Kreuzschnabel: I've made some edits to the undistorted version to reduce the prominence of the yellow building, etc. Don't feel comfortable nominating the one with the squished windows up top (maybe looks "normal" in the context of the crazy building, but all the windows there are indeed supposed to be portrait-oriented). Nominating here Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stata Center (05689p)2.jpg. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting place but that unsightly metal crate thing in the foreground is quite annoying, and I also think too much of the image is in shadow. I would definitely vote for the image Kreuzschnabel links to, though. Cmao20 (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For this composition to work for me, I think you would have needed a strong somewhat diagonal cloud, going across and somewhat down from right to left. The other photo doesn't really work for me, either. I think it's quite challenging to get a really satisfying photo of this building, because of its own very unbalanced composition that needs a complement somewhere in the picture. I know many people won't agree with me about that because they think that Gehry is a great genius, and therefore, every Gehry building is ipso facto great and a fully resolved composition by itself, and it's OK that there are different views about this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with you, great architecture doesn't automatically make for great photos, mostly because the buildings are so demanding themselves. It's often easier to make great photos of simple buildings since you can add to the scene through the use of a camera. --Cart (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks for the feedback — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plage de l'Horloge.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 19:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could be sharper, but a very large file, still good at 300% of the 13-inch laptop's screen, with a nice composition and mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing is sharp (again, why f/18?), too much noise, distracting foreground object (stairs?), and I can’t see any clear composition nor subject here. What’s the monument – the beach, the bridge, the buildings? --Kreuz schnabel 09:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Ikan, I think sharpness is OK given the file size, and I actually like composition and mood. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are we talking about the same image? ;) 23.8 megapixels is really not that outstanding – here is a large size image where sharpness down to pixel level is not required. Even downscaled to 50 percent (i.e. 6 megapixels), this here candidate is still not sharp. f/18 on a DX size sensor is an odd decision if you want a sharp image, due to aperture diffraction growing along the pixel density. --Kreuz schnabel 22:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completely agree with you that f/18 is not a good choice, especially on an APS-C camera (I would have used f/8 to f/11 on a “full-frame” camera). --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty noisy for ISO 100 and I also wonder why f/18. I do expect more sharpness for FP Poco a poco (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz and Poco a poco, please, take a look, I applied a selective denoise and selective sharpening. f/18 because I was looking to keep the beach and the bridge in the same plane. Thanks in advance for your reviews --Wilfredor (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpness is a bit better now but you cannot regain details lost in exposure by subsequent sharpening. The water surface has not been done a favour by sharpening, and I’m still not sold on the composition. If the bridge is the main subject (as I understand), it’s way too distant and too little visible of it. --Kreuz schnabel 06:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge is only a element in the composition, the title is Beach Horloge (in french). --Wilfredor (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition mildly interesting but lighting isn't great, plus concrete steps at bottom are distracting. Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Artifacts on water. Sorry for not seeing those at first, but they've really bothered me since I saw them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Version without the concrete steps at bottom

Info Because Eve Teschlemacher recomendation --Wilfredor (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less is more :) this is much clearer. However Oppose there are sharpening artifacts now all over the frame (foreground sand as well as the background bridge) and the cloning is poorly done (i.e. with visible traces), no this is not at all an FP to me for technical drawbacks. --Kreuz schnabel 10:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great improvement, much more relaxing to look at, but I'm sorry, I have to pull my vote from the other version and hold off here until it's clarified whether I'm looking at just wind or disturbing noise in the water. I'm talking about the small lines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How could this be wind? It’s on the umbrellas and in the sand as well. It’s sharpening artifacts – this image is hopelessly oversharpened in trying to save some detail from the unsharp shot at stopped-down aperture. --Kreuz schnabel 10:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I come from fix the excesive oversharpening and artifacts in the water, please, take a look --Wilfredor (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Wilfredor: Just as a hint: As far as I can see, the fix was applied to the first (uncropped) version, but not to this cropped one; it should be fixed, too. --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, the water still looks unacceptable to me. -- 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs) --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks guys for the feedback, however, IMHO this image are not working maybe i used too much DoF --Wilfredor (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dactylorhiza incarnata nothosubsp. versicolor1 - Keila.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 12:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info all by Ivar (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too shallow. Floral parts in front are out of focus and those in back out of focus. Only parts in the middle are in focus. This should have been focus stacked. Seven Pandas (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seven Pandas: Very harsh review. This is not a single shot! Dof is exactly as I intended it to be: 7 stacked images. Commons has no image of Dactylorhiza with this kind of detail and dof. --Ivar (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vamps (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me. Enough DOF to see lovely details of the flower, nice soft transition to out-of-focus areas. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too cluttered to me Poco a poco (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really stand out to me compared with our other flower FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case -- Karelj (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sympetrum sanguineum - Leucate 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 21:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info As some don't like zoo pictures, here an animal in the wild; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The resolution is not extremely large, but the animal well captured -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile Morin. --Hockei (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great body hair details. --Axel ^(talk) 23:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfecto. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toy Poodle wearing clothes in Tokyo.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2019 at 02:57:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Priceless look on his face! --Kreuz schnabel 19:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% kawaii -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, adorable but not eligible for FP. —kallerna (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, next candidate, please Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't it be eligible for FP, kallerna? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a case where Kallerna doesn't know the common translations of the words "not eligible". Please look it up on Google translate. In most cases it means "not permitted", but in a few rare cases it can be used for "not good enough" and that is probably what Kallerna means. --Cart (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is pretty good to me, it's nice and sharp, and the expression is wonderful. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Refreshing! --Aristeas (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support clothes on dogs ... they probably don't like it, but undeniably cute and the image is sharp/simply framed. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.07.22.-01-Leutershausen an der Bergstraße--Oberrheinische Tiefebene.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2019 at 17:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Germany
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like a quite common landscape image, I don't see this special enough to be a FP, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basotxerri, and there’s poor detail which is not excusable at that small image size. JPEG artifacts visible on the roofs/gables. Left half of background is tilted CCW (see chimneys). Sorry, this is a nice view but by no means an outstanding image of it. --Kreuz schnabel 20:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Es war mir schon klar, dass du kommst und wieder einmal Gründe erfindest oder aufbauschst um ein oder das Foto abzulehnen. "tilted" ist es kaum und das bisschen kommt daher, weil bergab fotografiert ist. Es ist ganz natürlich. Das müsstest du eigentlich wissen oder willst es vielleicht gar nicht. Ich kann mich an Fotos erinnern, die viel mehr "tilted" waren und hier trotzdem akzeptiert wurden. Es gibt auch keine "JPEG artifacts". Was auch immer du da siehst, hat nichts mit "JPEG artifacts" zu tun. Eher wohl mit atmosphärischen Verhältnissen. Denn es war keine klare Sicht, sondern eher dieslich. Sonne und Regen im Wechsel. Daher aus deiner Sicht wohl auch "poor detail". Und, was heißt eigentlich "small image size"? Also, die Frage stelle ich mir selbst. Offenbar willst du irgendwie Kameras mit 20MP-Sensoren hier nicht akzeptieren, raushaben, schätze ich. Es müssen wohl mindestens 40 MP sein. Denn ich habe das Foto ja lediglich von 4:3 auf 16:9 geändert. Es ist also die volle Auflösung. Unglaublich. --Hockei (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wenn du hier ein Bild einstellst, bittest du andere um ihre ehrliche Meinung dazu. Meine ehrliche Meinung habe ich dir gesagt, und es ist mir egal, ob sie dir gefällt oder nicht, ich sage das über das Bild und nicht um dich zu ärgern. Wenn genug andere dein Bild so meisterhaft finden, dass es den Stern bekommt, habe ich nicht das Geringste dagegen und gönne es dir. Was JPEG-Artefakte sind, die es deiner Ansicht nach gar nicht gibt, kannst du schön an den gelben Häusern links hinten am Ortsrand sehen, die in natura bestimmt nicht so vielfarbig sind. Und wenn die Schornsteine links im Hintergrund zur Seite kippen, dann ist das nichts Atmosphärisches und auch nichts vom Bergab-Fotografieren, so steil geht’s da wirklich nicht runter. Da ich selbst nur mit 16 Megapixeln fotografiere, wie du mit minimaler Recherche auf meiner Userseite hättest herausfinden können, sind deine diesbezüglichen Unterstellungen schlicht lachhaft. „small image size“ heißt, dass ich die hier sichtbaren Unschärfen auf einer 40-Megapixel-Aufnahme tolerieren würde, aber auf 15 Megapixel nicht, da erwarte ich von einem FPC bessere Qualität. Tipp: f/11 ist bei µFT schon sehr weit abgeblendet, da kommt es zwangsläufig zu Beugungsunschärfen. Ich hätte hier f/4 oder f/5.6 genommen, die Schärfentiefe hätte locker ausgereicht und die Detailwiedergabe wäre vermutlich deutlich besser gewesen. Und zu deiner Neuversion erfinde ich jetzt mal oder bausche auf, dass sie mir zu gelb ist. --Kreuz schnabel 12:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe meine Kommentar gelöscht, weil es nichts bringt. --Hockei (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not special enough. The foreground is uninteresting and the sky dull -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version. WB and slightly rotated. --Hockei (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Michael ob Rauchenödt Flügelaltar Werktagsseite 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2019 at 08:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Winged altar at the subsidiary church St. Michael ob Rauchenödt, municipality of Grünbach, Upper Austria. View for weekdays with closed wings. Anonymous master, around 1517. All except carving and painting by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Libellulidae Brachythemis contaminata on Nelumbo nucifera leaf with water drops, in a pond.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 00:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Nelumbonaceae
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very artistic and high quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual image, and perfect from the technical point of view. Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good example for the Lotus effect --Llez (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I've added a link in the description -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different. Only the light could have been a bit softer but let's not be too picky. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Gas Station Hamburg Grindel.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 08:27:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Capecross - nominated by Ivar (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Striking and really different from the usual submission here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 09:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, interesting and unusual work. Cmao20 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me an aquarium --Llez (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (You mean it reminds you of an aquarium. Human beings and animals can remember; things don't remember you.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the correction. That's what I wanted to say. --Llez (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great atmosphere. --Dinkum (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palau de la Música Catalana-Palace of Catalan Music (Image 2).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 08:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Spain
Info created by Tudoi61 - uploaded by Tudoi61 - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 6th prize in the national contest of Spain in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019. Very impressive music hall. There are other views captured by this photographer: this one at 18m rather than 12mm and this one from higher up, but I think this view is the best. It isn't perfect wrt slight vertical tilt and facing perpendicular to the horizontals in the frame, but imo it is close enough that I hope we can support it as it is, rather than insist on little fixes or a reshoot. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but technically indeed not optimal. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Uoaei1 --Isiwal (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Uoaei1. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Uaoei1. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tata Tamo Racemo.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2019 at 04:30:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info The Tata Tamo Racemo was a sports coupé developed by Tata Motors under sub-brand TaMo, it's now halted due to poor-performance of Indian automobile sector. Or maybe they now prefer Jaguar Land Rover brand more than TaMo. TaMo sounds cool IMO, a portmanteau of Tata-Motors. Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too messy background (e. g. a man cleaning the floor). — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background bothers me less, what bothers me more is the quality on the edges, they look noisy. The cut-off letter on the left is not convincing in terms of a carefully chosen composition. Viewed a bit more from the right, the car would entirely stand out before the white wall, that would make the composition much clearer. --Kreuz schnabel 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's QI and a useful shot, but I don't think the angle was especially well chosen for FP. There's too much distracting clutter in the background, and it feels a bit like a (good) snap taken at a car show rather than something where the photographer has taken a bit of time to think about the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per above opposes, unlikely to succeed. Thanks for reviews-- Eatcha (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Étang de Salses-Leucate edit

Visit the nomination page

Étang de Salses-Leucate, Occitanie, France, View from East
Étang de Salses-Leucate, Occitanie, France, View from West

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Aude
Info I don't know if we had already a nomination of panoramas of the same locality, but from opposite points. I think this is interesting for you get different impressions of the same landscape (see annotations in the panoramas); created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a deserving nomination. It's not totally perfect - there looks to be a very light stitching error that's most visible at the top of the picture frame a bit to the right of the left corner, but it's not easy to see, and there's what might be one dust spot in the water, about a quarter of the way from left to right at the far end of the light part of the water - but it's quite good and enjoyable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please make notes on the description side, I'll try to correct --Llez (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult, but first, I have to know how to access the nomination page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For sets, you have to click on 'edit' and then 'cancel' your editing directly. That will get you to the nom page. Hmmm... I thought we had fixed the problem with this and included a normal link to the nom page on these too. Will look into it. --Cart (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you can make the notes on the description page of the image, not on the nomination page of the set. That's not difficult. --Llez (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Ok, there is a technical problem with this nom. When Llez created this page they accidentally removed the top lines in the nom with the link to the nomination page (now restored manually) and also the 'FPVotingPeriodFlag' (can't restore that, maybe some admin can, don't know). You can see there is no "Voting period ends on..." at the top of the page. Without it, the FPCBot will not able to handle this nom. It would be best if you just withdrew this page and made a new nomination so that the nom and photos have a chance to enter the system. You will prpbably have to use another set name though, like "Étang de Salses-Leucate-2" or something. --Cart (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should also 'ping' Ikan Kekek about this since he already voted on this. --Cart (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination by Llez and replaced by new nom. Just placing the 'withdrawn template here so things don't get mixed up. Also archiving this. --Cart (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Svyatogorsk cloudscape.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 13:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Ukraine
Info Holy Mountains Monastery, Sviatohirsk, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine. created by Balkhovitin - uploaded by Balkhovitin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice view but the main subject is too shady against the dramatic clouds IMHO, and the entire image rather on the soft side for its size. Camera moved a bit to the left would have made the reflected mountain entirely visible :) The cut-off building on the left doesn’t look too pretty either. --Kreuz schnabel 17:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful clouds and a nice reflection --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I'd like for the main subject to be brighter, but to me the main subject is actually the sky... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that case, the FP categorization ought to be altered accordingly; in the nominator’s eyes, the buildings is the main subject IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 06:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you suggesting I should change it to 'Natural phenomena'? Happy to do so if others agree. Cmao20 (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clouds are nice, but also too dominant and otherwise there is not much of eye-catching things for me in the picture. Some of the buildings seem tilted and overall it's a bit too dark. --A.Savin 01:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Colors are a bit cold in my view, but the reflection adds something. Special sky and interesting building -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose After a couple of days of looking at this image and noting that there are attractive elements, IMO it's not quite FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after much thought. This is a very pretty image, especially in certain areas (the clouds and the buildings and reflections of them), but the composition really has never added up to me. There's really nothing balancing the strong motion of the streaming clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin -- Karelj (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per A.Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Cmao20 (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birds and sea.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2019 at 20:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A beautiful photo, but since you now have several QIs and FPs, it's about time you started to learn how to categorize your photos correctly. You are using the "tagging" system, which (sadly) is not what is used on Commons. Other friendly users have helped you so far, but as you are becoming a regular here, you need to be able to do this yourself. Please take a look at Commons:Categories. --Cart (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter: you're right. thanks for your suggestions and your kind.--Amirpashaei (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirpashaei: No problem. If the page about Categories is hard to understand, you can take a look at a post from my talk page where I was teaching another user how to categorize correctly. See: User talk:W.carter/Archive 13#Coaching.... --Cart (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @W.carter: thanks. i read it. that was very helpful.--Amirpashaei (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Will support once this is fixed. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Certainly dramatic and a worthwile contribution to Commons, but it doesn't seem quite sharp to me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao. There are also CAs at many of the birds --Llez (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 and Llez. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 and Llez. --Cart (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Nice idea with some wow but the drawbacks are too severe: Posterization in the sky, CAs on birds, contrast too harsh (white parts of plumage blown), insufficient sharpness, WB a bit on the reddish side IMHO. Exif data would be fine, geocoding is nearly a must for such a shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreuzschnabel (talk • contribs) Cart (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
moral support - it really is a great shot, but there are many technical problems mentioned above, and I don't think it's fixable at this stage. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. No there there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bonsecours Market 324.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 20:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very soft (due to f/18 I suppose) and noisy, and the tone mapping applied (I guess) looks very unreal. --Kreuz schnabel 09:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the lights I guess this is an (early) blue hour shot. Wouldn’t it look better (and more realistic) if it was darker? Maybe also the somewhat soft sharpness is partially due to too much brightening. --Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: Just to avoid misunderstandings: My comment was not intended as a rejection, but as a suggestion for improvement. Could you try to make the shadows (and maybe also the midtones) darker? Maybe then some of us will change their vote ;–). And even if that does not happen, the image itself may be better – IMHO your photo definitely is worth the extra work. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pretty, but I agree with Aristeas that it looks too light, as if the shadows have been lifted too much. Cmao20 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like all the bright lights. But even without this problem I don't find this view interesting. --Dinkum (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dinkum, not a compelling view Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz, Aristeas, Cmao20 , Dinkum and Eve Teschlemacher, I just uploaded another version without tonemapping, thanks for your reviews. And btw Aristeas my goal is not to get more FP, is more improve my skills, thanks and i love your review. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a different picture now. Minor fixes during voting period are acceptable, but in this case I encourage you to withdraw this nomination and place a fresh one for the second version. We cannot mix up votings on different images within the same nomination. --Kreuz schnabel 06:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think this is a pretty good picture and has a nice mood, but I agree with Eve that it's not a compelling view. In other words, good but not great, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, great composition, great summer-solstice mood but unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Posbank IMG 2340 2019-08-25 09.14.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2019 at 19:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands
Info all by Michielverbeek -- Michielverbeek (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The right crop of the trees feels random to me. Not a great composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality as usual for you, but per Ikan i'm not sure I get the idea behind the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was the right time to make a photo of the heath and the Postbank might be the best place in my country for this --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow per others. Certainly a nice enough spot but I cannot see any careful composition here. 2 metres to the left, the path could have given a nice line leading into the scene, but as obstructed as it is by the foreground shrubbery, it doesn’t work. --Kreuz schnabel 09:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, certainly QI, but not FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not an excellent picture for me. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Might've worked with raking light and a bluer sky. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Maria della Carità organo Brescia.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 14:29:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Musical instruments
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High-quality photo of an interesting, richely decorated pipe organ made by a famouse Italian organ builder. --Aristeas (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great stuff! Cmao20 (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful details. --Axel ^(talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schwetzingen - Schlossgarten - Moschee - Ansicht über den Moscheeweiher im Herbst 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 13:30:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Another shot by Aristeas. This is a really interesting one; it depicts the so-called Red Mosque, in Schwetzingen Palace, Germany. Strange as it sounds, it was never actually a working mosque; instead it was aimed to show Europe's newfound Enlightenment tolerance to other religious traditions. Created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for nominating! --Aristeas (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Red Mosque was build by Nicolas de Pigage as a part of the baroque park ensemble. In this photograph, I wanted to show the beautiful view or scene of the mosque together with its reflection in the pond and the old trees; I consider this as the view intended by de Pigage. It is not possible to show the complete mosque from this point of view, because always one part or another is covered by the trees; ~~but I am sure this was considered by de Pigage, too~~. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeas (talk • contribs) Cart (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

A lot of trees can grow up in 200+ years, and parks change. Have you seen the original plans for the park? --Cart (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right that I was hasty in my statement. I want to apologize for that and have crossed out that part of the sentence. It would certainly be better to say that, given the care with which gardens were planned at the time, I think it is probable that the later growth of the trees was already being considered at that time. But in any case, this is the present state, and I wanted to document it with the photo. --Aristeas (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice view, but the ugly bench spoils all for me. I wonder if you had the possibility to move it aside before taking the picture. --A.Savin 15:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not have the possibility -- these benches are quite heavy (I have once tried to move another one ;–). Therefore I decided to integrate it as foreground element. --Aristeas (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the bench, it's a nice counterpoint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very peaceful, beautiful reflection of the mosque, nice fall foliage, and the simple white bench is nice, in my opinion, certainly not ugly. What its presence in the photo also does is to help the viewer imagine him-/herself sitting there and viewing the scene (though from a somewhat different vantage point). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine!--Isiwal (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want to sit on this bench :-) Basile Morin (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 23:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tagblume Commelina communis stack25 2019-08-05-RM-8050218-PSD.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2019 at 09:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Commelinales
Info Flower of a dayflower (Commelina communis). Stacked with Helicon Focus from 25 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This looks to me to have broken new ground in flower photos on Commons. Strong support! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Dinkum (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I think you should consider whether the "stack25 2019-08-05-RM-8050218-PSD" details in the filename are relevant to anyone but yourself. The date perhaps. I have set my LR Mediawiki uploader to use the "Copy Name" Lightroom field for the wiki filename, giving me control over the name uploaded for Commons vs filename on disc. It also has the advantage that virtual copies can all be uploaded with different names if required. -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hint. Very good idea.--Ermell (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I don't see any info about shooting place. --Ivar (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info added.--Ermell (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 23:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 06:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Respect. -- -donald- (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support −-Llez (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hendrik Goltzius, The Great Hercules, 1589, NGA 70311.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 20:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Nudes
Info created by Hendrick Goltzius - uploaded by Brwz - nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs -- --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not as big as the source file at 100%. Why is that, and can it not be remedied? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It looks like the source file, when enlarged to the greatest extent possible, is almost 150% of the size of this file; however, when enlarged to that size, this file looks just as good as the source file. Sorry for the confusion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brwz (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice enough as a piece of historical art, but I just cannot bring myself to vote for a drawing so anatomically incorrect.--Peulle (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of art is anatomically incorrect, it's in the concept of artistic freedom. This is an artistic interpretation of the mythological figure Hercules, much like an yester-years version of the Hulk, no one expects it to have normal anatomical standards. --Cart (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, lots of art from this time (and even earlier art, such as statues from Antiquity) were more correct than this one. I don't agree with the artist's interpretation, put it that way. He blew it.--Peulle (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The right balance between Botero and Arcimboldo Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction. --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk)
Support Good quality and interesting. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Nudes

File:Pavillon de Flore from the Tuileries Garden, Paris 5 November 2019.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 18:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Ali Sabbagh (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition and beautiful clouds, but unfortunately too much shadow at the main object --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the drama of the photo, and I don't think it's problematic that part of the building is in shadow. This is a complex composition, not a mere photo of a building, and too much sameness becomes a kind of conservative conventionality here, which I think is bad for creativity and artistry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very beautiful, but it is slightly leaning counter clockwise and IMHO, it needs a bit more space at the bottom. --C messier (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the light and composition are superb here. Cmao20 (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan and Cmao20 convinced me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan; the clouds scream autumn. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Perth (AU), Elizabeth Quay Bridge -- 2019 -- 0346-8.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2019 at 20:50:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Australia
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a good night shot. However, the lower area is rather uninteresting although the eyes are automatically attracted by it.--Ermell (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ermell Poco a poco (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disagree with others. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the composition would be better if the area with cobblestones or most of it were cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A solid QI but IMO not quite FP. One's eyes are certainly immediately drawn to the huge cobbled area with its distracting road markings. Cmao20 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell.--Fischer.H (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Australia
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded two alternative cropped versions. Pinging voters and discussion participants Johann Jaritz, Ermell, Poco a poco, Christian Ferrer, Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Peulle, Fischer.H. Tomer T (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 edit

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Australia
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is o.k. for me.--Ermell (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better! — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now we are talking :) --Poco a poco (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not sure about the other alternate, but this works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is really good. --Aristeas (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you for your reviews. @Tomer T: Thank you for nominating. I would like to replace your cropped version by a crop based on my RAW data. It would be no longer a derivative. Is it OK? --XRay ^talk 06:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Tomer T (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Just uploaded the version from RAW data. --XRay ^talk 19:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Perth (AU), Elizabeth Quay Bridge -- 2019 -- 0346-8 (crop 2).jpg

File:Boston Public Garden (36008p).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2019 at 23:06:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#United_States
Info panorama from eight images, created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely morning in the Public Garden in Boston, Massachusetts (but it was actually -7°C at the time) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like how the trees on both sides rhyme. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something like a flying branch in the sky top left of the left tree – I would remove that, IMHO it’s irritating. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas: Oh dear, not sure how that got there. Done - fixed now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice framing, Rhododendrites. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support −-Llez (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light airiness of it. --Cart (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Light's a little harsh and it's not the most beautiful time of year, but the symmetry is great. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great symmetry yes, however the crop is tight at the bottom in my view. The format of the frame looks a bit shrunk. I think more water would have made this landscape very appealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fruit on a plate 2019 G1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2019 at 22:59:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the compo doesn't appeal to me. Fruit photos often work better of the fruits are bunched together in tasty-looking delicious heaps with perhaps some items trailing off from the main bunch, this is too scattered. The top down light doesn't help either, a light slightly from the side would give better volume to the subject. --Cart (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice shot overall but I do see where Cart is coming from. Cmao20 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, and the composition with pistachios well scattered around the plate lack natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's the harsh flash light. --C messier (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the light is not good. --Aristeas (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above --Andrei (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Thanks to all for review and feedback -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kākāpō head.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2019 at 17:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Psittaciformes_(Parrots)
Info Juvenile kākāpō on Anchor Island in Dusky Sound, New Zealand. The kakapo is critically endangered; the total known adult population is 213 living individuals, all of which are named. Most kakapo are kept on two predator-free islands, Codfish / Whenua Hou and Anchor, where they are closely monitored. Created by Kimberley Collins - uploaded by FunkMonk - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detailed pic of an endangered species. Cmao20 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me at all, the crop is too tight. Very noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition, kakalo head should be seen in whole. -- Karelj (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1 Poco a poco (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the head should be pictured as a whole. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that the photo is good enough for FP even though it's such a rare species. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focal point enhances the bird's expression, and gives a feel of texture to the feathers, and detail to the eye, beak and nares. These are features we don't normally see with such close-up detail, especially for rare and endangered species. Good job!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionally, has the feel of the best of a set where it was a basically a contest between the photographer and the bird as to whether the bird could get out of the frame before the shutter was pressed, and this is the one where the photographer won by using a slightly off angle. Technically, it's got a very small DoF and a lot more noise than other FPS like this have had. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as much as I'd love to support an image of a kakapo, like others above, the composition just doesn't work for me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Andrei (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graureiher Ardea cinerea-4883.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 09:34:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info Grey herons are only visitors of Tiergarten Schönbrunn, they are not captive, have no bird banding and are using the rich feeding grounds all over the park, created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Isiwal -- Isiwal (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isiwal (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grey Herons are relatively easy to spot and to take pictures of; so for an FP I'd expect more of the wow factor. Now while the quality is quite good, I don't like the light and the background that much, sorry. --A.Savin 01:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A. Savin has a point, but the quality is really very good indeed. Cmao20 (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Cmao20, I find the quality and level of details very good. --Dinkum (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp sharp. --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo might be good for illustration of the mimicry ability, but for the FP I would expect more contrasting background. I agree with A.Savin. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I looked at a few of the existing FPs of this species, and this photo is toward the better side of the ones that show the bird's entire body. I particularly like the sharpness of its legs and feet. I find the background fine, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per the opposers above but still a nice shot Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both pro and contra arguments are good, but looking again and again at it I really like it, espec. when viewing it at full size. --Aristeas (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, very good quality. But per others due to the background, sorry. --Hockei (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after looking at existing FP-s of Ardea cinerea, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the background shows well why a heron has such colors - it nearly blends in with its environment. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background Charles (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thin section scan crossed polarizers Siilinjärvi R636-105.90.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 09:20:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and minerals
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to scale on image. I forget where the guidelines are, but I'm pretty sure we are encouraged to avoid text on such images and to use the description to state how wide or tall the whole image is. Then if anyone wants to overlay a scale, they can and do it with whichever text style is consistent with their other images. Currently the scale limits the reuse. It is fairly pretty, but when I look through Category:Rocks in thin section I see quite a lot of pretty images. Even from this one sample, this one is more colourful. So I'm not sure what to judge here to say it is among our finest. -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:NoCoins suggests using a ruler like this. Feel free to nominate others from the category, most of those are photomicrographs, this one is taken with a different method. The image you linked is not from the same sample nor the same thin section. IMO both could be FPs. —kallerna (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{NoCoins}} isn't policy, just someone's opinion. A ruler or scale is more appropriate where the image has a background that the ruler can be positioned nearby the subject. Here the scale overlays the subject in a way that can't be removed. See File:Aluminium bar surface etched.jpg for example of FP with no scale and with measurement in the description. There aren't any other FPs where the scale is intrusive on the subject. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Some featured images with similar scales (although true, not over the actual content): File:Hafnium pellets with a thin oxide layer.jpg, File:Vanadium etched.jpg, File:Osmium crystals.jpg, File:Gold-crystals.jpg, File:Bi-crystal.jpg, File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG. Anyways, I added an alternative version without the scale. —kallerna (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the vital point -- we ensure any scale is in the body text or easily removed or cropped out. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I find this a better composition and at least equally interesting combination of textures as the other one (I like the areas with parallel lines in different directions), but I agree that the other one could also be an FP. We could have a few of them. I recall we've previously featured micrographs with scales on the image. The scales are useful, though I could imagine how it could limit reuse. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could simply include a version without the scale in the file history (upload it and upload the one with the scale again) or make a second version without it. That way people can choose if they want the scale or if they want to use another unit for measuring. --Cart (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scale spoils it -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and it's hard to focus your eyes on it Seven Pandas (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support scales create a deeper educational value. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info I've uploaded a alternative file without the scale. —kallerna (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If you saw this as an abstract painting in an art show, would you be happy with it? I would. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my reflection, before I read your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might be inspiring for modern artist painters -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me - with or without ruler--Isiwal (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose scales create a deeper educational value. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others -- Karelj (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No scale in this one. —kallerna (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind those voting against this one without the scale overlay that Commons is an educational media repository, not a publisher. As a repository, our highest value is to ensure the image can be used in the most ways. A book or website containing images of such rocks will want to present them in a consistent fashion with the scale either in the caption area or overlayed using the same font, size and colour text for all images. As soon as we put our own scale obscuring the image, we limit use, and limit language. The book might not even consider scale important to the usage. This image could also be used as a book cover for a book on rocks or indeed anything, but can't if there's a big ----1mm---- scale on top. However, Kallerna, you need to then describe the image dimensions in the body text, which should be a simple task of multiplication. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added. —kallerna (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you can't, I do not follow the rules in your head. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 01:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no reason why we can't have the one with the scale for educational purposes and this one to be an FP. Certainly it does not lose its educational value entirely without the scale. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The version without the scale only, as it allows greater flexibility of use. Cmao20 (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no reason for me to FP nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Thin section scan crossed polarizers Siilinjärvi R636-105.90 edit.jpg

File:Παραλία Αγίου Παύλου Ρεθύμνης 2947-Pano.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 08:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Greece
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sandy beach of Agios Pavlos, Crete, with its clear waters. Support -- C messier (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So sad nobody’s commenting on this one :) To me it’s just a nice touristic shot suitable for a glossy brochure but Weak oppose nothing special in a compositional way. --Kreuz schnabel 22:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been unsure for days and was even prepared to oppose until I took another look, but I'm finding that the composition works, and I like the colors, lines and textures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Noisy at distance, but not egregiously so. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Humayun's Tomb, Delhi, India 2019.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2019 at 04:39:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#India
Info Humayun's tomb is the tomb of the Mughal Emperor Humayun in Delhi, India. Image by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Isn't this the same file that was voted down in April, 2019? It looks like it is. And the vote was 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral. So why are you renominating it now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, It's the same file. I believe that it had the potential to be a FP but because of my lack of experience it failed, later w.cart cloned out the leaves and ... As you mentioned it was rejected by 5-6-1(~~rejected due to lack of 3 support votes~~) , IMO it's worth giving a second try. --Eatcha (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - OK, if that's what you want to do. I still think the sides are not sharp enough for FP, especially the left side. After all, it's the exact same photo I already said that about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, please keep in mind, with 6 votes against, you'd need at least 12 supporting votes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I had a notion of 2/3(total votes) as I nominated here after months. Thanks for the rectification. -- Eatcha (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oversharpened (strong sharpening artifacts in central part), sides still unsharp. Pity, it’s really a nice view and lighting and definitely has wow, but the image quality is too far below FP level. Sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 11:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my vote last time. It deserves QI now, at least, but it is lacking in detail at full-res (see how blocky the grass looks), and there are visible sharpening haloes around the building. Additionally I still think it looks oversaturated, though not as much as before. It's a beautiful building but I think an FP of it should be a little better than this. Cmao20 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per reasons above. -- Eatcha (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:White Cliffs in Pukearuhe 05.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 17:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is not optimal and the car tracks are disturbing. --Dinkum (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice view but isn't it tilted a bit? To me it seems like there are shadows and highlights missing, like they've been pushed to extreme values (shadows +100, highlights -100). --Podzemnik (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close Podz, according to Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer the values are: Highlights -95, Shadows +28, Whites -53, Blacks +74, Clarity +48, which is quite a bit for this kind of photo. --Cart (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very unnatural looking: overcooked. Downsized from 24 to 12MP with no good reason. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue Hour at Pakistan Monument.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 15:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created & uploaded by Muh.Ashar - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light. The tourists aren't too bothersome, and do provide a scale. Shame the reflection is not captured right to the bottom, within something blurred at the bottom, but this is not too distracting. -- Colin (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly featurable, do you think anything could be done about the colour banding/posterization in the sky? --Kreuz schnabel 17:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I am wrong about this, please let me know. The resolution for this image in Commons is listed as 6000 x 4000 pixels yet the Nikon D7200 listed in the metadata produces a DX-format image with a maximum resolution of 4800 x 3200 pixels. Over-sampling does not help this image and there is nothing wrong with a DX-format image if well done. Suggest it be uploaded again at the native resolution of 4800 x 3200 pixels, or less if it has been cropped. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem delivering photos with a greater pixel count than my camera's output by combining a few shots. It's quite popular these days, and most newbies don't know it could be useful to declare it in the file description. So the more proper question should be: Muh.Ashar, is this photo made up from several photos, or is it an upsized single shot? It would be great if you could clarify that. --Cart (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I see one stitching error (note added), so imo it's stitched image. Posterization on the sky is too big for me to support.~~ --Ivar (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support conditionally, assuming the highlighted errors are fixed. lovely otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhododendrites, can you make your vote clearer? Tomer T (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tomer T: ? I just used the support template, so the bot shouldn't be confused. It was conditional on the edits which have been made, it seems, so no problems here. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting blurred people, next time you could use layers with different shoots to delete the people --Wilfredor (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice mood and reflection, but agree about colour banding and pixelated sky (especially clearly visible just above the structure in the middle). There is also a stitching error in the lower left corner. --A.Savin 02:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. The banding has been reduced in parts, yet not sufficiently fixed. --A.Savin 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter Yes it is single image.

Muh.Ashar, is that you answering? You have to log in so that we can see that it's you answering. I also wonder how there can be stitching error in the image if it's just one photo? --Cart (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711, W.carter, A.Savin, and Cmao20: the Nikon D7200 is natively capable of shooting 6000x4000 24MP image. So I don't know where the idea comes from it is limited to 4800 x 3200 pixels. I think the small irregularity with the line is more likely to be an imperfect attempt to clone out something distracting (litter?). I don't think the line mismatch is noticable enough to oppose, though the pixellation in the sky is a bit troublesome. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin, W.carter, A.Savin, and Cmao20: Thank you, Colin for the clarification. Per the Nikon spec sheet for the D7200, the maximum resolution is 6000 x 4000 pixels. There is also a 1.3x crop mode for this camera at 4800 x 3200 pixels which was my point of confusion. Sorry about that! As I now understand it, this blue hour picture is a single image of 6000 x 4000 pixels. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what it actually is, it might be a good idea to crop away the lowest part, so that the error and the blurred object are not in the picture. I may support the image only if the issue with the pixelated sky is fixed too; which (if ever fixable) requires a new development. --A.Savin 16:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Muh.Ashar: Just for curious, Muhammad – is this a single image taken on a tripod at f/11 with a single 20-second exposure, or is there HDR stitching (built-in or post-processing) from multiple exposures of the same image to accommodate the high dynamic range in lighting? --GRDN711 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so much easier if everyone would just sign their comments so we knew directly who is saying what. This isn't Twitter. --Cart (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per the stitching error noted by A. Savin, but I think I would support if fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better now. Cmao20 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support This image represents a technical challenge but is well done. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting blurred people and pixellation in the sky. --Isiwal (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Muh.Ashar: I have made some corrections, please revert if you don't like the result. Also pinging all previous voters for another review: @Tomer T, Colin, W.carter, A.Savin, Cmao20, GRDN711, Isiwal, Wilfredor, Rhododendrites, and Kreuzschnabel: --Ivar (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ivar, thanks very much for the corrections! Tomer T (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Continue to support after corrections. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support after corrections. --Ivar (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support after corrections, thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The corrections help a lot, but I feel very frustrated by the crop of the reflection, so I think I'll abstain from voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Iifar: Thanks it look great after your kind effort. Further it's not HDR as i said it is single shot. @Ikan Kekek: sorry if the cropped reflection bothering you but this was the max focal length i got at that time and was trying to keep image straight so bit cropped from bottom. Thanks for your kind input as well. -- Muh.Ashar (talk)

Certainly. Of course I understand that photographers deal with limitations, but all I have to consider is the resulting image. This one is ever-so-close to being an FP to me, but clearly, a consensus of other voters here believe it is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Great subject and lighting but per Isiwal Poco a poco (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. I don't find the people all that bothersome; they're not the subject of the image and frankly the etherealness that creates makes a nice balance to the solidity of the monument. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Naissance du Wetr.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2019 at 14:50:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info Dancers during a Wetr creation tale dance in a cave in Lifou, New Caledonia, Melanesia.
Created and uploaded by Oroffino Michel - nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, light and colors. -- Cart (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was thinking about nominating it too, very great picture. Thank you for translation from French --Andrei (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some really great photos came out of that competition. It might be worth looking at all the uploads from it, not just the winners, since wise from WLM we know local juries make their decisions based on other criteria than we at FPC do. --Cart (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish there weren't such a tight crop at the bottom, but a fascinating photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish the little guy wasn't holding his hand in front of his face but otherwise excellent.--Peulle (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting photo. Cmao20 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wow! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support −-Llez (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gipfelkreuz Großer Weitschartenkopf.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2019 at 12:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
Info Simple summit cross on the Großer Weitschartenkopf. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done with good descriptive notes. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. The excellent composition of this one is, for me, what was missing from your last candidate, but it's definitely here. Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is not very sharp and the colours rather dull. No WOW for me--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Moroder here. Not much more wow than in any summit shot, background too hazy. Since the main subject is actually the cross (according to file name), this is not an outstanding picture of it IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 09:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've lived with this photo for a while, and my feeling, ultimately, is that the composition works. The haze in the distance is no problem, IMO, and the bank of bright white clouds on the left side beyond the hazy, distant mountains helps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moroder. —kallerna (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to main object and the haze in the distance is natural --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de Salzburgo, Salzburgo, Austria, 2019-05-19, DD 30-32 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2019 at 19:54:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Central dome of Salzburg Cathedral, Austria. The cathedral was founded in 774 and rebuilt in 1181 after a fire but it become its present Baroque style appearance under Prince-Bishop Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau in the 17th century. Note: there is already one FP of this subject. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Deserving, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Great, and I prefer the wider view, but I don't see why we need two FPs of an identical subject. Maybe if they were from a different angle or under different lighting, then yes, but given that this is basically a wider view focussing on the same place as the other FP, I don't think both should be featured. Honestly I'd support a delist and replace more than I would this. Cmao20 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support because my vote is the seventh support so far and I couldn't bear not to see this promoted. I still think it's too similar, but it is also better than the existing FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. I'll support, if the other is delisted. --Ivar (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Technically perfect, but for me it looks just like a wider crop of this FP --Isiwal (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to confess that I love both views and can’t even decide which one I like better ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahhh ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wieso nicht mehrere FP vom gleichen Motiv? --Ralf Roletschek 19:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nevelzwam (nebularis) tussen afgevallen beukenblad (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2019 at 17:39:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Clitocybe nebularis.
Info (Clitocybe nebularis) between fallen beech leaf (wet by morning mist).}} Because the fungus and the beech leaf are wet, the fall colors look good.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, very nice!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors and simple composition. At f/18, we can't blame the aperture for the lack of sharpness of the foreground. Focus stacking would have been really great here, but without this technique the focus on the stem seems adapted. The red leaves are well captured -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how you manage to produce FP-quality shots of natural scenes that others might easily overlook completely. Cmao20 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The top of that mushroom is really beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition --Milseburg (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Domob (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:19-11-09-Alte-Nationalgalerie DSF4154.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2019 at 22:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by -- Ralf Roletschek 22:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roletschek 22:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ceiling. Quality not completely perfect, but more than OK for an interior IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop is a bit unfortunate. A more wide-angle lens would have helped. Appears to have been taken at a slight angle, hence not perfectly cicular or symmetrical. -- Colin (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a 2,8/12 lens and it isn't circular in the original. see here --Ralf Roletschek 16:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tomb of Safdarjung in Delhi.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 10:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#India
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sarcophagus isn't sharp enough, imo.--Peulle (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess its subjective — Dey.sandip (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the crop/perspective in WLM winner 2012 was better. Yours is too wide-angle, making the sarcophagus too small in the frame, which isn't the scale/perspective that seems appropriate for such a tomb. Most of the outer quarter of the image is not adding anything much. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. A sharp version of the composition he links would probably be a worthy of an FP designation, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Colin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically not so sharp for this not so large resolution. A shame, otherwise this picture is really nice, and also much better than the one linked above, in my view. Far more interesting colors, and the game of light, with the crossing diagonals excellent. Maybe next time :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Indeed not very sharp, but I also like the composition and lights. --Domob (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiesa San Pietro in Oliveto navata Brescia.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 21:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Asymmetry makes the composition unappealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This gives you the added benefit of the view of the Cornu Evangelii and imo is less boring --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other side, nothing? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next time ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile Morin: This almost-but-not-quite symmetrical composition does not work for me at all. It immediately makes me wonder: what was so ugly about the right side that it had to be hidden? In addition to that, most of the image consists of either ceiling or benches, neither of which are particularly interesting. The altar area is interesting as you zoom in, but looking at the image as a whole, it is hidden far away in the back. Maybe a longer lens with more "compression" would have worked better? --El Grafo (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to be honest, I thought a chunk of the picture was missing because I first looked at it on my phone. That's how much unappealing I find it. If at least the crop made it clear what to focus on... but not even that. Aside, it's also a bit noisy (though not a FP killer, but should be easy to avoid given the favorable conditions). - Benh (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I know you like these off-centre compositions and I've voted for them in the past but this one is just too strange for me. The image quality is great, and I get your argument about it including the Cornu Evangelii and not duplicating identical information, but to me the nave of a church is a subject that simply demands to be shot symmetrically. I would actually be happy to support it if you produced a symmetrical crop to cut off the left-hand side, as what we'd have left would still be interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose entirely per El Grafo. Of course detail is impressive but size isn’t everything, and the not-quite-symmetrical composition is really disturbing. --Kreuz schnabel 11:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klatschmohn IMG 2533.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2019 at 15:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Ranunculales/Papaveraceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good capture, but the bokeh is a bit noisy or has a funny texture; whatever it is, it's distracting to me, so would you consider smoothing it out more? Also, even though the insect isn't fully sharp, I think you should include the category for it, and I'd suggest including it in the file description, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed by the composition. At only 3.8MP it is very small for 2019 and the combination of 100mm telephoto macro lens and long 1/20s exposure means the subject isn't sharp. What Ikan notes is that whole photo has been oversharpened to compensate, leading to a false grainyness in the out-of-focus areas. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insect blurred Charles (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Hockei (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Colin. Good, but not sufficient image quality for an FP in 2019. Cmao20 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it's going to be sharpened that much there is no excuse for the insect being out of depth ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crëpes de Puez vaciaria Val Badia Südtirol.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 21:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info Alpine meadows under the Pütia peak, the Puez range in Val Badia, South Tyrol - Unesco World Heritage Dolomites, Puez-Geisler Nature Park. All by me Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Is this a stitched Panorama or has your Hasselblad really 103MPix? -- -donald- (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really beautiful view, from flowers in the foreground to the high peaks in the background. I also love the winding track which leads through the image. --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously great. Cmao20 (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Easy on the eyes. Composition is great. --Dinkum (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume this is stitched panorama? The frame 2/3 along is blurred. You can see it on the huts and mountain portion. Perhaps shutter-shock? Do you have another frame to use? -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The alignment is not correct. According to the calculation, the Cunturines should never appear in a higher perspective than the Furchetta. The coordinates are inaccurate. From the indicated place these mountains are not visible. Problems with unsharp frame. --Milseburg (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done You are right, I corrected the coordinates, the perspective might not be very accurate --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice scenery, but sadly the left foreground is too blurry for me. --Ivar (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Ivar, the first frame is really blurry, you should crop it. Some of the other frames are not great, but still acceptable to me given the image resolution Poco a poco (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a little overexposed to me. Especially to be seen on the way in the foreground. I also think the sharpness in the left foreground is unacceptable for an excellent photo. (Compare the sharpness in the middle and right) Je-str (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even after looking three times on three different displays, I cannot find an overexposed area on the way in the foreground. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness as others. Too much is too blurry. --Hockei (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak regretful oppose because of the unsharpness in the foreground left of center. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I think we'll always want to be careful when judging pixel-level sharpness on mega-panoramas. That said, I've downloaded the image and reduced it 50% linearly (25.8 MP) and still found the bottom left to be unacceptably blurry, albeit just barely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some parts are indeed blurred, but in my opinion they are not too significant. Very nice composition and landscape! --Domob (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Milseburg (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osmia ferruginea female 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 17:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created & uploaded by Gidip - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed with this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The angle this was shot at feels a bit awkward, not quite on par with our best examples imho. On the other hand, it really makes the the disco-style glitter on the back pop --El Grafo (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it a living animal? The legs (tarsi) seem to have no contact with the ground --Llez (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Llez: She looks alive to me, but only the author can give you correct answer. The bee is imho in good shape (the hair is fit, antennaes are nicely up and wings are not worn out). --Ivar (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough in focus. Charles (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Charles and pretty small Poco a poco (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I used to live in a country where 3-inch jungle bees were common. This bee is quite a bit more than 3 inches long in the picture, and it's definitely not a Malaysian jungle bee, so its size in the picture frame is not merely twice its size but multiple times its size. So it should be even more multiples larger? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.08.06.-04-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2019 at 09:40:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Lestidae (Spread-winged damselflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This has to be one of the sharpest damselfly pictures I've ever seen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 11:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It's a stick pretending to be an insect! ~ R.T.G 21:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 00:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both this and the one underneath it are two of your best FP contributions so far. Cmao20 (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot! I would prefer the crop to be a bit less tight on the left, but that's nothing too serious. --Domob (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Lestidae (Spread-winged damselflies)

File:2017.08.14.-01-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Streifenwanze-Paarung.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2019 at 09:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Pentatomidae (Pentatomids)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic image! According to w:Graphosoma lineatum, "G. lineatum can reach a length of 8–12 mm (0.31–0.47 in)." They're beautiful, and that's terrific sharpness and an excellent capture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be titled (compare other images and expectation that stems are vertical). It is also rather small at 4.5MP. -- Colin (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info It is not tilted. I always use the spirit level. Maybe it seems to be because of the other perspective. When I would rotate it, it would look as if the bugs would about fall off. The distance to the camera was over one meter but the size of the subject is still big enough according the guideline. --Hockei (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kreuz schnabel 11:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Palauenc05 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 00:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Hockei, is it possible that these insects are really Graphosoma italicum, rather than Graphosoma lineatum? I note also this FP by Alvesgaspar of 2 Graphosoma italicum mating and the color descriptions in w:Graphosoma lineatum and w:Graphosoma italicum. The key point is that on Graphosoma lineatum, "the upperside of the body is orange yellow, with wide black longitudinal stripes", whereas on Graphosoma italicum, "the upperside of the body is red, with wide black longitudinal stripes". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite clear for me. Distinction due to the body colour is problematic because of different lighting conditions. The colour of the legs of G. italicum is only "mostly black" not always. In German I couldn't find a differentiation between G. lineatum and G. italicum. Look at here the pictures of G. lineatum. G. italicum doesn't seem to exist. Just in the en wikipedia. Maybe I could write to an expert. But aware the answer will take a while. --Hockei (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that it would take a while. I see no problem with making this photo an FP in the meantime. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Ikan Kekek, I have the answer from the expert. Just in short, according him G. italicum isn't a separate species but a different (I would express in English --->) type of G. lineatum. G. lineatum is correct. --Hockei (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So a subspecies. If so, and if there's any published source they can cite (since that's what Wikipedia requires), someone should correct w:Graphosoma italicum. Thanks for contacting the expert! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean subspecies. It's just a look what I mean. Not more! There is no proof for the existence of G. italicum. It is a long history about that. --Hockei (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That makes it even more important to document at that Wikipedia article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I beg to differ, G. lineatum and G. italicum are two distincts species. See that paper. They made a genetic comparison of italicum and lineatum. The paper is in french though, which is probably not helping to spread the word... They are 2 different populations italicum is found in continental Europe and has mostly black legs, while lineatum is only found in north Africa and has red legs. With a twist for the populations of Sicily and Sardinia, that have their own sub-species. The genetic study also finds that G. rubrolineatum, from East Asia, is actually a closer relative to italicum than lineatum is with italicum. Unless there has been a more recent study proving otherwise, we have to consider G. italicum and G. lineatum as distinct species--Hiouf (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Hiouf and Touam: The genetic test alone is not suitable for dividing this species into two different species. Because then millions of specieses would have to be redefined in different species, subspecies, sub-subspecies and so on. Would you say that, for example, Asians, Europeans and Africans are different species of humans? Because we all have different genes. I don’t think so. Do G. lineatum and G. italicum have overlaps of there habitat? I think so. Can G. lineatum and G. italicum together produce offspring that are capable of reproduction? I think so. So you cannot speak about different species but at most about varieties. You can write and speak in the French and English wikipedia what you want. But in Germany this is not scientifically recognized. It remains with Graphosoma lineatum.

Hi @Hockei: The genetic test is a very strong test to ID a species (1,2,3,4). The scientific community is using it extensively, and has even created recently a consortium to support the developement of DNA barcoding (5,6). And yes, you are right, there are probably thousands of species, if not more, that we may have wrongly classified, some taxa to merge, some to split into different species or even higher taxonomic levels(7). There are literally tons of papers on DNA barcoding, I've put only a few as references. Of course, splitting or not a species depends on the genetic distance between populations. Humans are all genetically of the same species because the genetic variability inter-population is not significant (counts for about 10% of the variability) compared to the intra-population (the other 90%) (8,9,10). Coming back the Graphosoma case, we have 1) two populations that are geographically separated without overlaps (italicum in Europe and lineatum in North Africa); 2) distincts morphological characteristics that are specific to the European and African populations ; and 3) a genetic distance that supports the morphological and biogeographical evidences (11). The ulimate test would be inter-breeding, but to my knowledge no one has done it, and I doubt anyone will as this is very time-consuming. So based on the previously mentionned evidences, we have here all the reasons to think those are different species (until proven otherwise). There are many other examples, Eurygaster maura/testudinaria or Carpocoris mediterraneus/fuscispinus. Last but not least, if you or the German scientific community think we should stick to G. lineatum, why not, but it would be great to hear why and present a strong case contradicting the latest published works. Saying "I think so" or "I don't think so" is not quite enough scientifically speaking. Hope you can re-consider this case, I definitely would if new light is shed. Cheers.--Hiouf (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiouf: Hi again. You can forget "I think so". The main question still remains to be answered. I have previously talked to a bug expert and independently of him with a biologist. So it does not change my position. Anyway. We should end the discussion hereby. How the species are to be determined, scientists and biologists have to agree on. Certainly not both of us. And besides, here in FPC anyway is not the right place. Have a nice evening. --Hockei (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, I don't understand englih, please excuse me. --Touam (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a mistake. I wanted to ping Hiouf. --Hockei (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hockei: you talked to specialists, I talked with a couple of Pentatomoidea experts too. I've also seen discussion with a third entomologist who changed his mind on this topic after the last paper. But this is not about who has the most experts on his side, this doesn't lead us anywhere. Although on a personal note, I would be curious what are the arguments of your expert to challenge the morphological, geographical and genetic evidences. I agree here with you that the decision is anyway left to taxinomists. I'm looking forward any new paper to see how it evolves. But if there are not, what does it mean, that everyone agrees with Lupoli, 2017 ? This question has been debated for more than 100 years, I guess it'll take another few years to have a clear consensus (or not) ;).--Hiouf (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hockei: I would like to share with you 2 things I thought you might find interesting. The first one is a paper by Berend Aukema, a dutch Pentatomoidea specialist, and head curator of Fauna Europaea. In his paper from July 2019 (here), he confirms the validity of G. italicum as a distinct species. The second one is a photo (here) taken by Paride Dioli, showing a G. semipuctatum and a G. italicum in copula. However, we don't know if the mating produced offsprings. P. Dioli is an italian entomologist, who was a believer of the synonymy between lineatum and italicum, but has now agreed on the validity of italicum after the molecular analysis. In the comments of this photo, there is a very interesting discussion between P. Dioli and R. Lupoli (who made the molecular analysis back in 2017). This discussion suggests we have still to learn about the population of Sardinia and Sicily.

Support--Ermell (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues here, very sharp and interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Pentatomidae (Pentatomids)

File:Spb Anichkov Palace asv2019-09 img15.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2019 at 17:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Wooden ceiling of the library room in Baroque Anichkov Palace, Saint Petersburg ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 17:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 17:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversharpened (artifacts visible on the candelabra). Not enough to oppose though because of the great rendering of the ceiling. --Kreuz schnabel 07:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced about the bottom crop and the chosen perspective Poco a poco (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per poco. Lots of unfortunate crops. - Benh (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a beautiful place, and I don't think it's oversharpened, but I agree with Poco and Benh about the crops. Cmao20 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Normal picture, not so special -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I can see what you were trying for but it just doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The bottom crop is a bit unfortunate, but overall the composition works for me. The ceiling is impressive in 100%. --Domob (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A tower over the Congost de Mont-rebei.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2019 at 20:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Spain

Info created by Jorge Franganillo - uploaded by RTG - nominated by RTG -- ~ R.T.G 20:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ~ R.T.G 20:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Withdrawn until we see if we can get the sky photoshopped ~ R.T.G 05:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant Oppose - I love the composition, but I don't believe in the colors in the sky. If someone wants to get in touch with Jorge and see if he would edit the photo, I might be able to vote to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan. This is a good quality photo other than the unusual colours in the sky. The fact that the sky colour varies so much across the picture is a technical flaw that precludes it from FP IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My guess is that author used polarizing filter. Nothing that can't be fixed. - Benh (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and Cmao20: Here is an edited version from the graphics lab: File:A tower over the Congost de Mont-rebei (retouched).jpg, what do you think? ~ R.T.G 16:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that version, it's a lot better. Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay over the next day or so I'll withdraw these two and post this one. o/ ~ R.T.G 01:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful: There's a halo over the cliffs on the right and it extends somewhat to the left. That calls for additional careful retouching. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until we see what can be fixed and, if so, how it is fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Django Reinhardt (Gottlieb 07301).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 02:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by William P. Gottlieb - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just in case anyone doesn't know, Django Reinhardt famously rose to prominence despite severe burns to his left hand. The injuries are clearly visible in the photo. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Comparing the original and restoration, it seems like some sharpness and contrast may have been lost somehow (I'm looking at his facial hair and the wisp of smoke. Could that be because I'm comparing jpg and tiff? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a certain amount of curve tweaks, human skin isn't as pale as images sometimes make out, but you may just be more used to the over-high contrast. Compare the last two uploads on the PNG Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support His music was actually quite popular on Swedish radio long after his death, so I remember how it sounded. I feel positively ancient... --Cart (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Masterfully executed documentary-style portrait that gives the impression of an intimate moment. The shirt and tie on the left and the table on the wall set the scene (suggesting we might be in the dressing room of the club rather than on the stage), but are subtle enough so they don't distract. The artist looks like he's just enjoying himself and not caring about the photographer at all. --El Grafo (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support You almost hear the music when viewing this. --Kreuz schnabel 11:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really great photo that conveys his character very well. Cmao20 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo. --Aristeas (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image of a musician making music ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorámica esférica de San Pedro Los Francos, Calatayud, España, 2014-12-29, DD 01-176 HDR PAN.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2019 at 07:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Spherical panorama of gothic church of San Pedro de los Francos, in Calatayud, Aragon, Spain. The original temple was founded in the 12th century by order of Alfonso I, "The Battler". He wished to offer the French who settled in Calatayud after helping him in the Battle of Cutanda (1120) against the Almoravids a place to pray. The current church was built two centuries later. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image and excellent quality. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stitching errors, barrel distortion. --Ivar (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar, and the spots below/above the camera are certainly not correct, especially the ceiling archs look oddly distorted. --Kreuz schnabel 11:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Except for the stitching error nice shot, but the distortion does not work for me. --Domob (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it is an HDR image, however, the colors are very flat for some reason also de distortion commented by others --Wilfredor (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand these criticisms about distortion. Is it possible that some people are misinterpreting the point of this image? You're not supposed to view it as a static photograph but as an immersive panorama, using the 360° panoramic viewer on the image page. If you're viewing it without using that, of course there will be huge barrel distortion, which is the consequence of a projection necessary to create a spherical panorama. But view it in the 360° viewer and it suddenly looks completely normal. We've promoted this kind of photo before e.g. this. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is barrel distortion on several edges in the panorama viewer. See the pulpit colums, esp. the one on the right. --Kreuz schnabel 19:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on the stitching errors being fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Buf, agree, there are obvious stitching errors, sorry for that. I'll work on them this weekend, I take it back for now. --Poco a poco (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peilstein 20191012 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2019 at 05:40:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower Austria
Info Sunset at autumnal Peilstein mountain in the Vienna Woods, Lower Austria. Can you find all the climbers? All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very high quality, but I need something more in the foreground. --Claus 06:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically great, still the wow on the subject itself is limited on my side. Saturation/contrast looks a bit overdone, the forest is too dark to me. --Kreuz schnabel 07:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work. Very well composed and detailed portrait of this interesting mountain. The high resolution makes viewing not easy and does not have to be IMO. But the climbers are an eye-catcher in full resolution, which is pleasantly sharp. --Milseburg (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very bland composition - Benh (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Huge file, and undoubtedly a VI if nominated, but I find the composition pretty inert. Nothing much helps my eyes move around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support since it reminds me a lot of the Shawangunk Ridge near where I live and its cliffs, which I see very frequently, and they too have climbers dangling from them. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well done image but IMO not enough wow for FP --GRDN711 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Velden Seecorso 10 Schlosshotel W-Portal 21102019 7318.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2019 at 12:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Austria
Info Perhaps you'll think this is too ordinary, but to me it's just such a delightfully colourful photo that it deserves an FP label. The image quality is great too. created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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