Commons:Кандидате пентру имаджини ексчеленте
Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | فارسی | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文(中国大陆) | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia |+/−
Дакэ консидери кэ ексистэ о фотографйе пе Коммонс суфичиент де атрактивэ ка сэ се афле пе паджина Commons:Имаджини ексчеленте, атунчи те ругэм инклуде-о ын листа де кандидате едитынд ачеастэ паджинэ. Дакэ ексистэ ун консенс дженерал дупэ 15 зиле, имаджинеа ва фи трансфератэ ла Commons:Имаджини ексчеленте.
Пропунери edit
Featured picture candidates edit
File:Fall Of Baghdad (Diez Albums).jpg edit
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 22:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
- Info created by unknown 14th century artist, uploaded by पाटलिपुत्र, nominated by Yann
- Support High quality reproduction of a 14th-century representation of the Siege of Baghdad (1258). -- Yann (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Ganado, Imehejek, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-21, DD 10.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 18:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
- Info Cattle herd going through a street before sunset in Imehejek, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing composition!, congrats Diego I love very much your work. Maybe some noise because oversharpening?, but FP for sure to me --Wilfredor (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Denoised, thank you for your feedback, Wilfredo :) Poco a poco (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much dust covering the background. JukoFF (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely, that's IMHO what makes this shot, together with the golden hour, so interesting. Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Wilfredor. Yann (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and different to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Kruger National Park (ZA), Elefant -- 2024 -- 0649.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 16:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Proboscidea_(Elephants)
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not up there with current FPs in composition of technical excellence. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support It looks like this is technically as good or better than some elephant FPs, but it's also of a type of behavior we don't appear to have an FP of (correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Jacaré do pantanal.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 12:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Alligatoridae (Alligators and Caimans)
- Info Yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) during feeding, Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil. Located on the border of the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, the park has an area of 135,606 hectares (335,090 acres). It is in the Pantanal biome. Created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by ★ -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Not very high resolution but I think there're strong mitigating reasons here… (BTW, it reminds me of Snowmanstudios' works). -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Tilted? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but still FP. ★ 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not the previous version before this correction of the tilt made at 20:02 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a nice shot, but it is quite tilted, quite small and has oversaturated colours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I admit I was a bit hesitant to give this picture an upvote, fearing someone might comment about a "Brazilian friends group". However, I decided to cast those fears aside because, frankly, the photo is outstanding. I believe the size is perfectly appropriate given the rarity of images of this style and from this region. The composition truly deserves recognition. As for the colors, could they be considered too saturated? Personally, I don’t think so. To me, they are simply the reflection of a diverse and rich nature. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! --Yann (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: did you use Topaz to upscale it? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I "rollbacked" it. To add sharpness to the photos I do an upscaling with Topaz and then a downsize to return it to its original size, I just forgot the last stage, I already returned it to its original size, thanks for letting me know Wilfredor (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent to me - look at that eye! The photographer hasn't contributed since 2017, so we can't expect them to address the degree of saturation or tilt, but I'd be happy to see an alt if anyone would like to make one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Fairmont Hotel Chateau Frontenac Quebec City.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 23:16:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
- Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by Marc-Lautenbacher -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Beautiful picture of Frontenac, however, underexposed, verticals fix, too many elements in the composition --Wilfredor (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | 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:Guaita Fortress - San Marino - 2024 02 13 - GT 01 ver2.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 17:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#San_Marino
- Info This panorama of the San Marino (City) is the result of the fusion of 60 photographs. Above you can see the Guaita Fortress and its famous feather. The whole panorama is breathtaking even if the background is slightly foggy: During the winters, especially in the months of February and March, it is possible to see advection fogs on the Adriatic Sea, which tend to invade the mainland for several kilometers from the coast. This phenomenon indicates the imminent arrival of spring. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It does not work for me, the colours are too dull probably due to the harsh light when the sun is near it's zenith. PierreSelim (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Bar-bellied Pitta.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 15:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pittidae_(Pittas)
- Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JJ, you've done it again! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Thomas-Fuhrmann (16) (cropped).jpg edit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Phallaceae
- Info Clathrus chrysomycelinus in the Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Environmental Protection Area, São Paulo state, Brazil. It is a species of fungus in the stinkhorn family, found in South America. Created and initially uploaded by Snowmanstudios - cropped and nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I cropped it just because the foreground was a bit distracting and the original crop in general a bit unbalanced. Picturesque fungus. -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Is the fungus supposed to be grey or white? The whole photo seems very underexposed. BigDom (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Brightness added. ★ 09:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting fungus --Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and very strange topic --Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Poco2. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ArionStar thanks for nominating my image, cropping the image this way is much better, yes! thank you. Snowmanstudios (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Nice. Can halos be removed from 'top' edge please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per others. I think this is quite small. Adding information about the size of the fungus would increase the already substantial educational value of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Corniglia dal Sentiero Azzurro2.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Liguria
- Info: village of Corniglia seen from the Azure Trail, Cinque Terre National Park; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Parc Culturel De l'Ahaggar (37).JPG edit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 12:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
- Info created by Hamza-sia - uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support: pleasant composition and certainty has wow, but rather soft. Also, I changed the gallery to Algeria. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 13:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The only thing missing in this composition would have been a motor home. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a protected park that contains archaeological artefacts dating back one million years. No motorhomes are allowed Riad Salih (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good, and I'm happy to see good photographs of Algeria being featured. If the geological structure we're looking at has a name, it would be great to add it. I notice that in w:fr:Parc culturel de l'Ahaggar, lots of thumbnails are unspecifically identified as "Le parc culturel de l'Ahaggar." Similarly, the file description provides information about the park, but it would be good to add information about the composition of the structure we're looking at (basalt?). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:View of Suria (3).jpg edit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 09:52:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Spain
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: would support if at least some of the trash at the bottom of the gully were cropped out or cloned out; ruins the wow for me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @The Cosmonaut Don't you think that removing the trash from an image compromises its authenticity? It seems to alter the reality and potentially misrepresent the exact date and time the picture was captured. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it really depends on the context. If a trash pile is the subject, then yes manipulating it would be detrimental. Here, the subject seems to be a pretty Catalan town. Being careful about framing the shot takes nothing away from its authenticity. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support But per The Cosmonaut. That will improve the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I'd be happy to look at a cropped version, but in terms of cloning stuff out, I agree with Riad Salih on not compromising the photo's authenticity. Besides, what you're calling trash is either all or mostly wood, so it's really not so bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:St Vincent church in Soppe-le-Bas (1).jpg edit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 09:48:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support All picture is in shadow, but is a nice church in sunset Ezarateesteban 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very decent photo but not an extraordinary architecture, in my view. Two trees in front of the building are competing with the subject by hiding the main facade. I find the gate on the left distracting and the irregular flows of black asphalt on the road too dominant as part of the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Basile about the black asphalt streaks. Tournasol7, would you consider cropping out most of the road for an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Blanche Roosevelt by Napoleon Sarony.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 03:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1870-1879
- Info created by Napoleon Sarony - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Info We have one FP of her (from last week), but this is a second image of her, at a different angle, and I believe there's no requirement to only have one FP per subject. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Subtle and fine portrait. We have at least 7 FP of Neuschwanstein Castle, 4 of them with the same perspective and crop; so it seems legit to feature two photographs, both very good, of the same person ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent to me. Two related photos of her are probably enough for FP, though. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:PepperFlower4K.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 02:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Solanaceae
- Info created by Bst9jkj - uploaded by Bst9jkj - nominated by Bst9jkj -- Bst9jkj (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Bst9jkj (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question What is the gallery? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not too good with galleries since this is my first time, but it's supposed to be the family that pepper plants are in. if you could help me w/ galleries that'd be nice Bst9jkj (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Gallery link fixed – given that the plant really belongs to the bell peppers (as the file category says) and hence to Capsicum annuum, the link is Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Solanaceae. But “pepper” is ambiguous. If the plant rather belongs to the Piperaceae, the gallery link would be Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Piperaceae, but that section does not exist yet (I will create it when necessary). AFAICS we have one “peppers” FP, File:Peppers in water.jpg, but that one concentrates on the fruit and hence is listed under Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Vegetables (raw). --Aristeas (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not too good with galleries since this is my first time, but it's supposed to be the family that pepper plants are in. if you could help me w/ galleries that'd be nice Bst9jkj (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing composition, dull light and low quality, sorry. Also metadata missing, and uncalibrated color profile -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- i added the version w/ metadata Bst9jkj (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile and the lack of a wow factor. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that this is not an FP because of the extremely high standards for featuring flower pictures. However, I'd like to give this photo a little love. The resolution and details are really impressive for a cellphone! The categorization is bad, though. Please read COM:OVERCAT. I'd love to compare this to other flowers of the same species, but your categorization does not facilitate that, so I'll leave it to you to figure out whether it's the most useful photo in a suitable scope for a COM:VIC nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Churchkhela in Shaki.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2024 at 22:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Sweet food
- Info created by Nemoralis - uploaded by Nemoralis - nominated by Nemoralis -- Nemoralis (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Nemoralis (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think this "sucuk" looks very yummy looking so for that im giving this a + Bst9jkj (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very striking as a thumbnail, but unsharp and noisy at full size. It would also be better to take a level and not slanted picture and include the entirety of the sucuk on the right and left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sucuk to suck perhaps delicious, but the quality... sorry (suffers from issues) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Giorgio Vasari - Allegory of Justice and Truth (1543) - Google Arts and Culture.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2024 at 05:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
- Info Giorgio Vasari was a Mannerist painter who, in his day, was highly respected as an architect as well as a painter, but less so in subsequent centuries. He served as the Florence Medici court's minister of culture, and the Lives (his work on the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects) successfully propagated the notion that Florence was the best in the visual arts for a long time. This painting clearly shows his artistic and cultural sensitivity during the italian Renaissance period. Created by Giorgio Vasari - uploaded and nominated by -- Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support For the hard work and high quality Poco a poco (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:M Santos-Dumont Aéronaute (photographie (...)Atelier Nadar (btv1b53220531z)-restored.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2024 at 00:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1899
- Info created by Gaspard-Félix Tournachon - uploaded by Stv26 - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 00:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I prefer the Wilfredo's restoration, given that it preserves the original light sepia tone (maybe too much contrast applied?) and has less grain (or it's less visible) in the darker areas. ★ 00:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle. This one has more contrast, but that one eliminated or greatly lessened dots, scratches and other surface damage, but of course they're less visible with less contrast. Might it be possible to combine the strengths of both restorations? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is a job for Adam the Restorer! ★ 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer, where possible, to help other restorers rather than take over. Ezarate, do you have Discord, perchance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- yes, I have Discord @Adam Cuerden: thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Any conclusion? ★ 12:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- yes, I have Discord @Adam Cuerden: thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer, where possible, to help other restorers rather than take over. Ezarate, do you have Discord, perchance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is a job for Adam the Restorer! ★ 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle. This one has more contrast, but that one eliminated or greatly lessened dots, scratches and other surface damage, but of course they're less visible with less contrast. Might it be possible to combine the strengths of both restorations? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Holy Spirit stained-glass window (Cathedra Petri).jpg edit
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 23:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment How about different crop without the part of papal crown and the key at the bottom? --Thi (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you can propose an alt version Wilfredor (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I removed part of what you commented, correcting what poco a poco commented Wilfredor (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good image quality Cmao20 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support That's quite good. Thi, do nominate an alt if you've got one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good but the image is tilted in ccw direction Poco a poco (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no reason why this image shouldn't be corrected for such an easy-to-fix issue. I oppose until fixed Poco a poco (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: Please take another look Wilfredor (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no reason why this image shouldn't be corrected for such an easy-to-fix issue. I oppose until fixed Poco a poco (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- DEGA MD (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 13:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Daphnia.sp.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 16:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae
- Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Janeklass (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Truly impressive. Excellent shot! - Riad Salih (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 17:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wonderfully detailed and a pleasant composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support so beautiful – reminds me of some artworks by Paul Klee or Paul Wunderlich … Gallery link refined. --Aristeas (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ten points out of ten! JukoFF (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per JukoFF. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good addition to Commons and Wikipedia. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting and of good quality but could you please remove the purple CA? Poco a poco (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Purple CA removed Janeklass (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Wiener Secessionsgebäude Kuppel Blattwerk 20230811 01.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 16:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Others
- Info Foliage work at the dome of Secession Building, Vienna, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 18:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ermell (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors. --Yann (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 13:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:SimoOstra.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 16:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Class : Ostracoda (Ostracods)
- Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Janeklass (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support, and please don't delete the air bubbles. Is one of the categories COM:OVERCAT, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The species of ostracod is correctly identified. --Cayambe (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support yes, please don’t delete the bubbles. – If this is a ostracod, the gallery link should be Arthropods#Class : Ostracoda (Ostracods), right? Have changed this accordingly. --Aristeas (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Tribu Laarim, Kimotong, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-24, DD 51.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 12:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
- Info putting aside the debates on Poco's other nomination of tribal people, I think this one has a superb composition, excellent image quality, and perhaps feels a bit more natural and informal. Created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Simple and authentic portrait, but the description is currently not specific enough. Male or female? It seems to be a woman with masculine facial features, and also holes in the ears. Decorative scarification on the chest. With this pipe, the scarf tied on half of the head, and the expression of meditation, the picture is showing someone in a very natural way. Excellent quality and good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Poco a poco, Basile makes some good points here, I think this image will pass but could you add some of these things to the description? Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Basile Morin: Yes, it's a woman, I updated the description Poco a poco (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The image's composition is strong, with well-balanced framing and an off-center subject. I like the natural sunlight, as it provides soft, diffused illumination, creating a serene mood. First vote in 5 months too. Wolverine XI 17:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you, Cmao20! --Poco a poco (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, both, Cmao20 and Poco, for the nomination and upload. This is a beautiful picture, moving for me. Perhaps the composition would be even more striking if cropped a little at the left, but it's a matter of choice (and personal taste, probably). Within some groups in Africa, women smoking pipe sometimes indicate they have had a baby. The pipe used by women is longer so that when they breastfeed, the smoke from the pipe does not go near the baby's face -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ermell (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good portrait. Without presuming anything about her facial expression, it has an emotional effect on this viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good work in South Sudan, Poco! ★ 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There's something I want to say, since Poco's work in South Sudan has gotten some flak: South Sudan is a very poor, conflict-riven country (and before that, region of Sudan) that is not much visited by tourists. So regardless of the relevance of criticisms of the manner of any photographs of South Sudanese people, it's valuable to have them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Ikan, I fully agree. I would also like to say that I chose this one to nominate because I am pretty convinced that even if you agree with some of the criticisms made of other nominations (which I don't, but that's besides the point), I don't see how this one could be considered guilty of the same. Cmao20 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I understood that. I think we need to salute intrepid photographers for going where few foreigners dare to travel (unless they're in relief organizations, etc.). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- In case people didn't understand it, by no means do I view all of the photos from Poco's Sudanese trip as problematic. Of course not! There are a few that IMO have the problematic style I mentioned before, but this is not one of them. In the same way, not all photos taken during the colonial era are problematic. Curators who handle large collections at museums face that same problem with defining such photos since the definition is fluid and often subjective. [1] This here is a more sensitive portrait. --Cart (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Ikan, I fully agree. I would also like to say that I chose this one to nominate because I am pretty convinced that even if you agree with some of the criticisms made of other nominations (which I don't, but that's besides the point), I don't see how this one could be considered guilty of the same. Cmao20 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good portrait of an interesting subject, nice work. BigDom (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 13:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Watching the Dancers by Edward S. Curtis 1906 - restored.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 12:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1900-1909
- Info created by Edward S. Curtis, restored and uploaded by W.carter, nominated by Yann
- Support 1906 picture of high quality. I like the symbolism here. -- Yann (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture has noticeable stains, scratches, and discoloration as a result of aging and inadequate preservation. The restoration attempts are only partially effective, resulting in a lack of dynamic range and a loss of information in the shadows and highlights. It is challenging to see finer details in contemporary photography due to the image's softness and lack of sharpness. Wolverine XI 18:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Please take into account that it is a 118-year old picture. The quality can't be compared to recent ones, or even to pictures from the second part of 20th century. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Searching for the best photographs on the website is the main goal of FPC. This image is out of date, and rather than wallowing in the past, we ought to work toward achieving higher and better quality photographs—even if it means removing images from the earlier 1900s. In short, we are moving forward, not backwards. Wolverine XI 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Nothing is out of date, and certainly not old artistic photographs. You better study a bit more of photography before making such judgement. Yann (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I know more about photography than you can possibly imagine. You have not experienced what I have, you are not me, and you have not lived my life. And may I inquire, by which authority do you evaluate my photographic expertise? You make a lot of nasty remarks in your response, and to make matters worse, I just got back. The next time you disagree with someone, avoid targeting their personhood to further your point of view. I don't need your advice or instruction for that matter, thank you! Wolverine XI 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Nothing is out of date, and certainly not old artistic photographs. You better study a bit more of photography before making such judgement. Yann (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Please take into account that it is a 118-year old picture. The quality can't be compared to recent ones, or even to pictures from the second part of 20th century. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support If the criticism isn't really of the quality of the restoration but of the photo as "out of date," that makes no sense as an appraisal of quality and importance of any artwork. Would you say that about Bach? Michelangelo? The sculptors in ancient Egypt, China and Greece? The architects of the pyramids and the Sphinx? I wouldn't! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're not getting what I'm saying; I made a very good case for my opposition above, and you still don't get it. Wolverine XI 06:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please feel free to rephrase it if you like, and I'll definitely consider it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying that what I put in my vote was unclear? "Out of date" refers to the quality being too poor to qualify for FP. Don't consider my reply to Yann, but the reason for my opposition. I hope that makes everything clear. Wolverine XI 09:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't implying anything, just agreeing with you that I must not have understood something about the case you're making and asking for a clarification. So in terms of the photo being too poor-quality, do you mean the photo in comparison to other photos of its time and/or the quality of the restoration? I'll look at it again, but I'm interested to understand your point of view better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying that what I put in my vote was unclear? "Out of date" refers to the quality being too poor to qualify for FP. Don't consider my reply to Yann, but the reason for my opposition. I hope that makes everything clear. Wolverine XI 09:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please feel free to rephrase it if you like, and I'll definitely consider it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're not getting what I'm saying; I made a very good case for my opposition above, and you still don't get it. Wolverine XI 06:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Important historical photograph in good quality for its time and very good restoration. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Yann and Ikan. Quality is never "Out of Date!" --Ooligan (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for nominating this Yann. This version is already an FP on en-Wiki, in case people don't know. What I love about this photo is the simple and elegant composition and its timeless subject. Four young women are up on a high point looking at dancers (who were predominantly male at that time) performing in the square below. It's not far-fetched to imagining them joking, teasing and making comments about the guys below, same as young people dotoday, and always have done. --Cart (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Zernez, Unterengadin, Graubünden. 20-09-2023. (actm.) 31.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 05:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings
- Info Zernez, decoration on the vaults of the Reformed Church San Mauritius. The church can first be seen at the end of the 13th century. These rich decorations were probably applied from 1609 onwards. See Reformierte Kirche Zernez
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Not big, but a nice, interesting and somewhat funny detail. Have changed the gallery link because this fits well into our gallery of ceilings of religious buildings. It has no Switzerland section yet; I will add it if this photo gets promoted. – Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good and unusual. Yann (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Nice photo. Is it a bit grainy, or is that just how the motif looks? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Answer: The decoration is a form of stucco. I quote a sentence how it is described:Hier finden sich für Graubünden aussergewöhnliche Stuckaturen im Stil des Frühbarock, hauptsächlich mit reich verzierten Früchtemotiven. See also Wilipedia Reformierte Kirche Zernez There are also many cracks in the plasterwork. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. What I think I'm seeing is some quite fine-grained noise, which is only darker and lighter and does not vary in fundamental color. At 50%, though, I can see some only on the green petals or leaves in the center; at full page, I can't really perceive it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Noise reduced. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good improvement, thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 13:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
File:La gare ferroviaire d'Oran, 2015.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2024 at 20:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train stations
- Info created by Terki Hassaine Samir - uploaded by Terki Hassaine Samir - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, I apologize for the confusion. Please remove the nomination from the page. Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don’t worry, the Bot will archive within 24 hours. ★ 21:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Riad Salih: This is a train station building, right? I have improved the gallery link (above). If you nominate this image again, just copy the gallery link Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train stations. Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ArionStar and Riad Salih: This image is now re-eligible due to one of Riad's nominations being tagged with FPX. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don’t worry, the Bot will archive within 24 hours. ★ 21:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice mood but IMO some way short of FP technical quality, big blown highlights + lack of sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 Even if we take into consideration that this image was taken in 2015? Riad Salih (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Riad Salih, the year doesn't make a difference to me, I'm judging by what counts as technical excellence in 2024. The only times I would make exceptions are for photos with excellent historical value. But even for 2015...take a look at these pictures that I recently (within the last 2 months) nominated at FP, they are from 2015 and 2016, neither is technically perfect but I think both are better than this. Cmao20 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 I do agree with you, but the comparison is a bit unfair since a picture taken at night and during the day is different due to the lighting conditions. However, if the image has no chance, I would prefer to remove the nomination. Riad Salih (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Riad Salih, the year doesn't make a difference to me, I'm judging by what counts as technical excellence in 2024. The only times I would make exceptions are for photos with excellent historical value. But even for 2015...take a look at these pictures that I recently (within the last 2 months) nominated at FP, they are from 2015 and 2016, neither is technically perfect but I think both are better than this. Cmao20 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Perspective correction would usually be requested for this kind of image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Riad Salih (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Barbary macaque in Cap Carbon (Gouraya National Park).jpg edit
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2024 at 13:55:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
- Info created by Hamza-sia - uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support It could be a bit sharper but this is a special pic of animal behaviour with a good composition so it deserves a star Cmao20 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 19:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good and the better of the two nominees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The image, featuring a hazy Barbary macaque, suffers from inadequate focus and clarity, with distracting background items and uneven lighting reducing the overall quality, resulting in overexposure and underexposure. Wolverine XI 09:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Wolverine XI the image suffers from inadequate focus and clarity, can you tell us where exactly? Riad Salih (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a cute and good picture but the lighting (with the whole scene in shadow) couldn't be worse --Poco a poco (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly a valid and standard objection, but I would say that sometimes, being in shadow gives emphasis, much like in music, a passage that's subito p can be emphasized in a striking way that a garden-variety ff passage is not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor technical quality and poor crop Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Statue of a Victorious Youth edit
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2024 at 09:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
3/4 Right front view
-
Body front view
-
Face front view
-
3/4 Left front view
-
Back view
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
- Info created by J. Paul Getty Museum - uploaded by DEGA MD - nominated by DEGA MD -- DEGA MD (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support High-quality studio photographs of a famous sculpture provided by the museum. Multiple perspectives contribute to better appreciate the details of the artwork. -- DEGA MD (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sure! I would also include the back side view. Yann (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done I included the backside view in the set. DEGA MD (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Obviously. --Aristeas (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ermell (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Bien sur --Wilfredor (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @DEGA MD: you can't add a fifth view like that in the middle of your nomination without notifying all the previous voters -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I stated it immediately after making the change. I'll ping previous voters in case they want to review their support. DEGA MD (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Any reason for excluding two profiles and two 3/4 back? While number 2 and 3 are very similar (body and face front views). Arbitrary selection, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I would have gladly nominated all the views (they share the same exceptional image quality), but it seemed to me like an excessively large set and I could not find any example of a successful nomination of a set of 9 images of the same sculpture. I originally nominated the four front views because I find them to be the most valuable for Wikimedia projects. Then, I followed the suggestion of an experienced user and included a complementary backside view. DEGA MD (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we've had larger sets than that, but sets are supposed to be complete. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I would have gladly nominated all the views (they share the same exceptional image quality), but it seemed to me like an excessively large set and I could not find any example of a successful nomination of a set of 9 images of the same sculpture. I originally nominated the four front views because I find them to be the most valuable for Wikimedia projects. Then, I followed the suggestion of an experienced user and included a complementary backside view. DEGA MD (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, but an underlying problem is that they look too similar from each other -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Why not 10 views? Too much for me. 2 views, maximal 3, would be enough, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Messy set, sorry. ★ 02:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per above. In this case one picture or two would be enough, in my view. A heavy set does not really bring anything more than the "face front view", unless you want to inspect each of the tiny corrosion marks from every angle. It often happens that we take numerous FP-level photos of the same subject, and in this case, the nomination work consists of choosing the best one(s). As written in the guidelines "Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process." Five pictures here (including two similar pairs) is an arbitrary choice, and the whole set would be too much, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a set by FP guidelines. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Core sampling.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2024 at 22:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
- Info created & uploaded by Paaver - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting action shot but the OOF leaves(?) in front are very distracting, and I don't like the vignette effect. BigDom (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose per BigDom. A shame because I like the mood and the atmosphere. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Bold but well thought out editing: the foreground leaves and shallow depth of field create distance, the selective dodging and burning draws the eyes to the main subject, and the muted colours and punchy blacks are fitting for a bogland. A pity about the chromatic aberration on the handle and hands, hopefully the photographer can address it. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose To my mind, this is a valuable photo, so probably a VI, but not an FP with those distracting greenish blobs in front of the people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose because the green blobs are just too disturbing. Would be FP without them Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Off-center composition and, more bothering, the green blurry parasitic shapes in the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support along the lines of Julesvernex2. At the 1st glance the foreground leaves are irritating but they add depth and a feeling of authenticity. --Aristeas (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice short but the colors seem a bit unnatural --Riad Salih (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Huevos de salamandra con menos de una semana de gestacion.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2024 at 22:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Salamandridae (True Salamanders)
- Info created & uploaded by Pablaud - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Cool photo. Any way to establish what species or genus of salamanders these eggs are of? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support: my understanding is that in Spanish, salamandra común refers to Salamandra salamandra. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you confident enough that we could change the English-language file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I updated the description and categories. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I updated the description and categories. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support IMO interesting, well composed photo and quality is okay considering small size of object and high resolution Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive and astonishing; one of the photos which show how fascinating natural sciences can be. Some minor CAs, but they are hard to avoid here and not irritating. --Aristeas (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 17:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Leather boots men's.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2024 at 18:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing_and_textiles
- Info Leather boots men's. My shot and edited by my specific taste. --Mile (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Table setting is messing with my head. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @SHB2000 Solved. Right side wasnt pleasure (teblecloth), + EV on it so not to bother too much, but some shadows must stay. --Mile (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Many parts of the table cloth are overexposed --Llez (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Llez On purpose, and they are not subject to care, shoes are. --Mile (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The subject is the boots, not the table cloth. Yann (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Issues, in my opinion: 1) Tablecloth more associated to food in general. Shoes to doormat or carpet. Shoes on tablecloth a bit strange. 2) Weird appearance / processing -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I like the black-white contrast. ★ 02:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Boots on the tablecloth? My mother would have been very cross. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others.--Palauenc05 (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Rural Leonforte1.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2024 at 23:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Italy
- Info: Rural Leonforte, Sicily; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support A subtle composition and not the most obvious wow, but IMO a good and painterly one. The wind turbines on the hills really add something here by providing a bit of counterpoint for the eye. But I wish it was a bit sharper. Cmao20 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. The rainbow is in the right place for the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support per Cmao. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sicily shows itself from its sweetest, bucolic side; the rainbow makes it perfect. --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry - rather than adding harmony, the windmills and rainbow seem like contraditory elements in the pastoral qualities of this image. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Спаривание ктырей.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2024 at 20:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Asilidae (Robber Flies)
- Info Asilidae mating can often be observed in summer on all continents except Antarctica. In the morning they are covered with dew and do not move. / Сreated by Shapomacro - uploaded by Shapomacro - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support There are stacking errors, and it's oversharpened, but also good composition and colours and very useful and detailed photo Cmao20 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- So why support? I don't understand. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Per Cmao20 --Llez (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 19:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, but a bit on the sharp side in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting but overprocessed, sorry, not a FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Useful document but not one of the best on the site, given the numerous focus stacking issues, lack of sharpness and heavy post-processing. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor focus-stacking and composition is not quite there. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Lunatisporites transversundatus (Jansonius, 1962) Fisher, 1979.jpg, featured edit
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2024 at 20:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info Early Triassic (251 Ma) gymnosperm pollen Lunatisporites transversundatus (Jansonius) / Created by Dmitriy A. Mamontov - uploaded by Dmitriy A. Mamontov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very valuable! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question What does the scale mean (10 MKM)? There is no standard SI unit as MKM. Yann (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- MKM (МиКроМетр) is Russian for Micrometre. JukoFF (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support OK. Could you please add this information in the English description? Yann (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- MKM (МиКроМетр) is Russian for Micrometre. JukoFF (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino in Vatican Last.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2024 at 19:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Frescos and murals
- Info created by Raffaello Sanzio - uploaded and nominated by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Impressive resolution, but we already have a FP version with different colors, so I wonder why this is much more blue. Yann (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was looking at other photos and comparing them with mine, I asked myself the same question and I have come to the conclusion that perhaps when they took the photo there was a type of lamp that emits yellow light giving that tone. Today it has been replaced by a fluorescent light that does not directly impact the painting. You could check the colors, this is definitely not yellowish.[2][3][4] --Wilfredor (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Your third link is a copy from Commons, but we can trust the Vatican Museum. Yes, not yellow, but a little less blue than yours. Yann (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, you can't trust them, the quality of their photos are not good and I think the colors are modified. Making special mention of the photos of the Sistine Chapel of which it is not allowed to take photos but right after they sell their saturated and poorly taken photos Wilfredor (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Your third link is a copy from Commons, but we can trust the Vatican Museum. Yes, not yellow, but a little less blue than yours. Yann (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was looking at other photos and comparing them with mine, I asked myself the same question and I have come to the conclusion that perhaps when they took the photo there was a type of lamp that emits yellow light giving that tone. Today it has been replaced by a fluorescent light that does not directly impact the painting. You could check the colors, this is definitely not yellowish.[2][3][4] --Wilfredor (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I am seeing what I believe to be green and purplish CA at the pixel or a few pixel level interspersed all through the picture, and I don't see that in the FP Yann linked, so I'm reluctant to consider this an FP. I find it hard to believe that was part of the artist's palette. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so either, but after 500 years perhaps the colors underwent some modification. I could upload the raws if you don't believe me and need to see for yourself Wilfredor (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, it's possible the colors changed, but why doesn't the other photo show those changes? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Info That's not CA but chroma noise, and it's all over the image. El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I know there is noise due to the darkness of the place, but I generally don't do denoise on paintings because noise is information in these cases. When it comes to normal objects, noise removal works but, as in the case of Topaz AI, in paintings the software gets confused with the faces and tries to add non-existent details, so I have chosen not to remove the noise Wilfredor (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Alt chroma denoise version edit
- Info It was difficult to remove the noise due to the dimensions of this image, I generally don't remove noise from paintings so I had to take the appropriate time to do a respectful job. The biggest problem was finding a computer that could handle such voluminous images. Please give it a new look. @El Grafo, Ikan Kekek, and Yann: . Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please have another look. Some areas of the upper center are notably unsharp. I haven't checked the entire photograph, but it looks like some further editing is needed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- In that case I give up, it is a very big image and I need to borrow a computer that I don't have. Wilfredor (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Campamento de ganado de la tribu Mundari, Terekeka, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-28, DD 106.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2024 at 11:02:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
- Info Herd of Ankole-Watusi cattle of the Mundari tribe crossing the White Nile from the cattle camp to an area where they can graze during the day, Terekeka, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Poco, I often enjoy your photos and I'm sure this was a great sight in real life but there are a few issues here for me. Firstly, the composition is very busy - probably unavoidable given the subject but still the half-cut head on the right and the tuft of grass on the left are not ideal. The harsh daytime sunlight has washed out all the colours and there are burnt patches on the cattle in the background. Speaking of the cattle in the background, there is something going on there because despite the fact they are outside the field of focus, some of the cows have a sort of "fingerprint" pattern on them which must have come from the post-processing (presumably where there were folds in the skin). Lastly, despite the f/9 aperture very few of the cattle and their horns seem to be in focus, which is a shame. BigDom (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- BigDom: I've improved the crop to get rid of some disturbing elements and also cloned out half a horn on the right side, better? And as you guessed, yes, the scene was overwhelming, seeing hunderts of those huge cows swimming with the eyes just over the water was an experience. Poco a poco (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely better, thank you, but my opposition still stands; the colours are too faded and the depth of field too small for this to be featured IMO. BigDom (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- BigDom: I've improved the crop to get rid of some disturbing elements and also cloned out half a horn on the right side, better? And as you guessed, yes, the scene was overwhelming, seeing hunderts of those huge cows swimming with the eyes just over the water was an experience. Poco a poco (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Weak opposeI'm sure this was absolutely amazing to see but, sorry Poco, just not enough of it is in focus for me to support. It would make a great cover on a glossy coffee table wildlife book but IMO not sufficient for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. I got this one wrong, I'm not sure the sharpness matters as much as I thought, Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I like this shot, it would be better to lean down, since cows on shore are not in focus. --Mile (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Why should the animals on the shore be in focus? Photography consists of sharpness and unsharpness, this is not an (old-style) painting. --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support amazing to see here as well. Tomer T (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Great composition, but I'm afraid the slow shutter speed is the problem. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charlesjsharp JukoFF (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Cape Town (ZA), Waterfront, Clocktower Bridge -- 2024 -- 3026.jpg edit
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2024 at 08:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 08:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but it's just a pile with cables, I don't feel anything about that. Even the light or the shadow don't create the WOW to me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Sebring12Hrs. I respect the effort to produce something abstract, but the forms and colours here are not really speaking to me Cmao20 (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Works for me. A composition of lines and dynamics, balanced and reduced to the max. --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support At first I thought: what should I do with this? But after looking at the photo again every day, I thought the lines were minimalist and refined.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 17:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Sebring. Nothing really special here. Yann (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Yann Poco a poco (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Veronica Lake still, Paramount Pictures.jpg, featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2024 at 20:06:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1950-1959
- Info uploaded and restored by Yann - nominated by --Thi (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ezarateesteban 21:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I marked some lines that remain on her face. I sort of feel like this picture has been unduly enlarged, overemphasizing scratches and producing posterization lines on the upper right and center. I remember when my brother made analog prints blown up with an enlarger in the 70s. They were high-quality. I think the problem here is that an existing analog photo has been enlarged, producing digital artifacts, instead of redeveloping it at a larger size from the negative. If that doesn't make sense, let me know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- More restoration done. Thanks for spotting these scratches. Sure, it would be much better to have a non-compressed high resolution scan, but we don't. I think an earlier version was over-compressed, which produced these artifacts. Yann (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definite improvement, thanks. Still some artifacts on the upper left, which I see I didn't mention before. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I can't see marking by Ikan, but saw it easily, at lest two...and marked. Watermark on left is more historic and could be left, right one was some internal marking and not useful. --Mile (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Buddha Vairocana - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2024 at 17:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Buddhism
- Info created by unknown artist, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann
- Info This representation of Buddha Vairocana, the “Resplendent One,” features several of his defining characteristics, including his white color, performing the teaching gesture (dharmacakramudra), and sitting on an elaborate lion throne. The two bodhisattvas flanking him—one green and carrying a sword, the other red and holding a lotus—and the teachers in the upper corners cannot be identified with certainty. This painting was likely part of a set and only the knowledge of the whole set enables the identification of the secondary figures. Pigments on cloth, 14th century thangka.
- Support -- Yann (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Tilted down when going from right to left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but this may never has been rectangular, and it may also be distorted over the centuries. And since it reproduced that way by Google Art Project, I would not change that. Yann (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting especially with these explanations. Cmao20 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Palácio Anchieta Vitória Espírito Santo Interior 2019-2957.jpg, featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2024 at 13:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Building interiors
- Info created and uploaded by Prburley - nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ★ 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support This reminds me of the Samuel Beckett advent calendar. --Thi (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support This photo gives me something unpleasant that I don't know how to explain. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: Unpleasant? ★ 00:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know, I don't know how to explain it but I don't like this scene, the photo does, but I wouldn't like to be present in real life in a scene like this Wilfredor (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: Unpleasant? ★ 00:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Works for me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I just don't see what's featurable about this. It's a very simple composition of a pretty normal and generic motif that you see every day, the black and white gives it a kind of eerie/horror movie vibe which is cool I guess but not really that suitable given that it's trying to illustrate a place of government. (Perhaps that depends on the government...) In short, fine picture with decent image quality but no wow for me at all. Cmao20 (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you perfectly; minimalist compositions may not suit everyone. ★ 03:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cmao20. -- Karelj (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support There's something scary about it for me, I don't want to be there.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very artistic composition, I like the black and white style. It's perfect Riad Salih (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I've to agree with Cmao20 Poco a poco (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)