Open main menu

Commons:Ընտրյալ պատկերների թեկնածուներ

Ընտրյալ պատկերների թեկնածուներ էջն այլ լեզուներով.

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 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | հայերեն | +/−

Shortcut: COM:FPC Եթե Դուք կարծում եք, որ գտել կամ ստեղծել եք պատկեր, որն արժանի է դառնալու ընտրյալ, խնդրում ենք այն ավելացնել Թեկնածուներ բաժնում։ Եթե 15 օրվա ընթացքում Ձեր առաջարկն ընդունվի համայնքի կողմից, ապա պատկերը կստանա ընտրյալ տիտղոս։ Խնդրում ենք ուշադրություն դարձնել, որ «Ընտրյալ պատկերն» ուղղակիորեն կապ չունի Օրվա պատկերի հետ։

Contents

ԹեկնածուներEdit

Քվեարկելու կամ նոր թեկնածու առաջադրելու համար, անցեք այս հղումով։

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Großer Wollschweber hinterm Elbdeich.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 19:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2019 - Nationalpark Jasmund - 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 19:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Кристаллы в высохшей капле Кока Колы.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 14:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •   Info Crystals (mainly sugar) in a dried Coca Cola drop under a microscope. Polarization. Crossed polarizers.
  •   Info created by Alexander Klepnev - uploaded by Alexander Klepnev - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks very nice and I would like to be able to vote for it. However, ZoomViewer is not working and I can't open such a big file. Often a smaller version is provided on the file page of large files for situations like this. Example. --Cart (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you. I don't have enough memory to open the full file! However, the picture is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! Yann (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question What's the scale of this? Yann (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! Thanks Yann for the smaller version. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This badly needs a bit of rework to be good. With the black levels my monitor is able to differentiate, there is a lot of noise, unsigthly sensor patterns, false colors, posterization, and a good amount of dust and dirt, all visible in the shadows literally everwhere in the image, without any further enhancement by me and without cranking up monitor brightness. If your monitor can't show it, I suggest opening it in an image editor and rasing the shadows. I'm offering to do the processing to make this clean, but maybe Alexander Klepnev wants to do it himself. Regarding its resolution, viewing this at 100 % does not show detail but rather very mushy pixels that would get opposed immediately in other pictures, I would downscale at least by half and slightly sharpen to make it less bloated. – Lucas 18:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll have to take your word for this since I can't open the original file. Well, this seems to be one of the cases against very large files then. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the author of the photo is a simple teacher at school. He conducts a special course for children on photography of images with a microscope, and alas, he will not finish the photo: ( JukoFF (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks for the info. I've made the edit in the shadows and downscaled to 25 % size as I've found there wasn't more detail available beyond what are now approx. 23 MPx. Slight sharpening. I've updated on the original file page and switch to   Support now. – Lucas 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Londok jantan yang sedang berjemur.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 10:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Madakaripura Waterfall - Indonesia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 10:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Snowmanstudios - uploaded by Snowmanstudios - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   \WOW :-) -- Eatcha (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressive view, yes, but I'm bothered not the whole waterfall is rendered sharp. I get the feeling the focus was set too close and my DoF calculator tells me the hyperfocal distance could have been used here. The sky is blown on some parts and there's lens flare on the extreme right. – Lucas 12:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would support if the lens flare is corrected. --Yann (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as it is right now. Necessary improvements: natural WB (currently by far too warm), fix lens flare, remove the plastic bottle at the very left bottom. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment thanks for your input, changed the WB, removed the bottle and the fences, the visible "lensflare" is from a water droplet on the GND-filter, but yes, looks far better without. @LucasBosch: you meant this "lensflare" on the left side, not on the right, correct? and your DoF calculator, I mean, I get the feeling whatever... --Snowmanstudios (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better now! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I meant the lens flare on the right, I hope it is one. You might be able to change my and other's opinions (see below) about the distant out of focus parts if you cared to explain instead of quibbling about a DoF calculator. – Lucas 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm struggling with my vote so far, because the photo has something special - the wow - but it's super-unsharp on the upper left. I think I can tolerate the apparent little lens flare on the right, but is there any way you could improve the sharpness and definition on the upper left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm mostly bothered by that gray-ish patch in the shadows up right. It looks exactly like what you get when you try to raise something from very dark areas where there is little or no info other than darkness. On the whole, the post-processing looks a bit shoddy. Granted it is a very difficult subject light-wise, but I'd welcome a more natural look. --Cart (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Black hole - Messier 87 crop max res.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 07:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per above. Yann (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2019 (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:Limbach Baggersee 7295069.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 06:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this nomination is a real stretch for FPC, because a lot of regulars here tend to object to photos that don't contain the entirety of a lake. Painters routinely make these kinds of crops, because the result is a wonderfully dynamic sky rhymed by a peaceful sandy and grassy near bank, interacting with the trees on the far side, with the water and reflections in the lake in between. Of course Ermell can speak for himself, but I think the fact that the clouds, even more than the lake, are cropped adds tension and dynamism that fits the type of weather Ermell was experiencing and wants us to experience at one remove. (Tangentially, I had a dilemma in terms of categories, because an excavation lake is not natural, but it sure looks natural, so I couldn't think of a better category. Mixed?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   + 1 -- Eatcha (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Is it just me (or the compo) or is the image tilted a bit? --Cart (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I hadn't noticed it. Maybe. User:Ermell, what do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done I had already corrected the image but forgot to upload it. I hope I didn't spoil it.--Ermell (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. IMO the left side is hanging a bit to the right. A less strong zoom (with more photo at the left part and a bit at the right) could have given probably a more attractive composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose The leading lines all lead towards the patch of trees on the right, which is placed a bit too far off to the side making the composition unbalanced IMO. -- King of ♠ 13:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural WB and no wow for me, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for nominating Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Astern IMG 3343.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 06:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - Vincenzo Bellini - Théatre Royal Italien. Salle d'armes dans l'Opéra I Puritani.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 23:48:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vibrant Sky.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 23:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (actm.) 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 16:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:反送中遊行 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 14:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Wongan4614 - uploaded by Wongan4614 - nominated by Wongan4614, A photo taking in 16 June, it showed the protest in Hong Kong at that day was flooded the streets outside Pacific Place -- Wongan4614 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wongan4614 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- SH6188 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A significant event, but the technical shortcomings of the photo are too many. There is heavy chromatic aberration all over the photo, it needs perspective correction, it is over-saturated/(or vibrance), there is chromatic noise in most places and somehow detail in the photo is not what you'd expect from such a camera. Please look at a few tips on post-processing on COM:PT. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart, no disrespect but for Asian people these got too much of a sun tan in the processing. – Lucas 16:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) male Montagne d’Ambre 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 05:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Carretera Granma.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 01:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info: all by me -- СССР (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shadow covering up the left side is distracting. -- King of ♠ 02:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of Hearts--Boothsift 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I actually like the contrast of light and shadow and don't really understand why that's considered so bad here. That said, I'm not sure about the photo in general. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH – Lucas 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King of Hearts.--Vulphere 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Kokerei Zollverein Essen - kühltürme - by db3em.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 18:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Henri C. R. Presseq - Camille Erlanger - Le juif polonais.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 15:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:De Groene Verbinding.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 13:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Netherlands
  •   Info created by Robert Hertel - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Has wow -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great combinaison of forms and colors. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sadly there are two cranes in the background that could have easily been cloned out. They are quite symmetrical but don't fit thematically for me. – Lucas 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I rather feel that the accidental (or if you prefer, found) symmetry of the cranes makes the photo better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed, wow (and I don't know this bridge) --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   weak support works well but colors appear a bit overcooked --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Farul vechi din Sulina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I agree. Once a day has passed after the other one was FPXed, this nomination should be reactivated. And this photo is interesting and IMO deserves consideration. I'd prefer if it were de-noised just a bit, but it's a good photo. I would contest the FPD, but I'm not sure how to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Eatcha, per the rules, a FPX is still considered active as I can be contested anytime during 24 hours. A denied nom can also be removed from the list after 24 h, but as there is interest to continue voting I will remove my FPD after the deadline of the FPX has passed and I closed that other nom for good. – Lucas 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, please remove it before 13:00UTC otherwise the bot will close it. (24 hours limit at 08:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)) -- Eatcha (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colors seem overcooked and there are halos around the tower due to oversharpening. Coordinates would be nice. – Lucas 07:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support Street view here -- Eatcha (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality should be better. -XRay talk 10:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Normally I'd agree that it's a little overdone, and it does look like some filter was applied, but in this case it offsets the effects of the cloudy sky and dull light. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:F18 aboard USS Carl Vinson.jpg,Edit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 06:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
  •   Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Rebecca Sunderland - uploaded by User:Cogaidh - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry only adding now, didn't read the instructions Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like how part of the plane and another worker is obstructed by the worker in the front. Colors look overprocessed. – Lucas 07:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral because the wow factor is very high... but I really think the image should have a higher resolution.--Peulle (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I've commented out the the Bot closing since this has not been visible here until now. The nominator altered the timestamp on the nom, but the Bot keeps track of it anyway. If anyone has a better idea of doing this, please do so. --Cart (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Has WOW -- Eatcha (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Will vote after another look later--Boothsift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the compo a bit messy and unbalanced. These are also technical issues as noted above. --Cart (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart; the contre-jour idea could have worked but not here, where the sunlight is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:St. Wolfgang kath. Pfarrkirche Pacher-Altar Sonntagsseite 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •   Info St. Wolfgang Altarpiece at the catholic parish- and pilgrimage church St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, Upper Austria. View for weekdays with closed wings. Michael Pacher, 1471–79, set up in 1481. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Michael Pacher is a fantastic painter I wasn't aware of. The richness and depth of field in these paintings is wonderful! You captured them really well. You could add even more value to the photo if you can identify what scene each panel depicts. I could recognize some of them, but not all, and some people won't recognize any. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your suggestion. Indeed, this is work in progress, as I have some more images of this altar piece, which show the individual panels. But these still await final processing and upload. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The window frames in the background suggest either the whole setup in the room was not right or the camera was off-center. IMHO in either case you should have seen this and corrected the camera position to make it look centered. The bottom crop is too tight for me, it barely clears the bottom of the wood structure. There are magenta CAs on the windows. – Lucas 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I was standing right in the middle of the nave. These old buildings are usually not completely straight and rectangular. CAs are fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Michael Pacher, wow, he lets us forget some offset pixels! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not easy to make but very well implemented--Ermell (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.10.-02-Wendisch Rietz--Kaisermantel-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 18:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
  •   Info Let us make it clear from the start: If you like the background or not, I love the colour contrast of the butterfly to it. And there is no more room below so I had to crop it above in about the same distance. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I love that you have the guts to nominate a photo with such a "non-Commons" crop; filling the frame like that feels fresh. The total color experience is great, soft, warm and lovely. This could be a print on something in a high-end store. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really beautiful butterfly and very impressive resolution and sharpness! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart and I like the background very much – Lucas 07:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart is right, it feels fresh. Not because you filled the frame (that can look quite static and boring) but because of how you did it. The diagonal flower. The butterfly making its own diagonal that is not quite aligned with the flower but does provide some symmetry due to how the wing tips are positioned relative to the left and right edge. The composition is clearly structured, but still feels very dynamic. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop not how I like it, but artistic impression and technical quality overcome this weakness. Charles (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Albert Einstein Head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 18:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has gained no additional support in the three days since it was nominated, against more opposes than it is likely to overcome Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 07:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
  •   Info created by United States Department of Agriculture / Eric Erbe; digital colorization by Chris Pooley, edited and uploaded by Lycaon, nominated by Yann (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Electron microscopy picture of a Lorryia formosa mite. Magnified about 200×. -- Yann (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fairly old image, but still holds up.--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Amazing! And I don't know if electron microscopy has advanced greatly in the last 11 years. Has it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive quality, great work! --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic --Boothsift 03:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:View from Mirador El Time - La Palma.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 07:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Mirador El Time on the southwestern part of La Palma with the Caldera de Taburiente (left), the cities Los Llanos de Aridane, El Paso and Tazacorte, the Cumbre Nueva with the cloudfall, the Cumbre Vieja and the banana plantations along the coast; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This looks really great at full-page size on my 13-inch laptop, but when I look at the file at larger sizes, I see what looks like one or more bad frames. I've marked their approximate location. It's striking because the buildings in the town look good but the greenhouses or areas of farm with tarpaulins over them to the right of the town look intensely blurry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done You are right, some frames were not sharp. Fortunately I had made another Panorama from the same place which is sharp. I replaced the unsharp version by this second panorama --Llez (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit unfortunate as I preferred the look of the other one, but nonetheless this one is deserving of FP. -- King of ♠ 03:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the weather conditions were not ideal, there is too much haze in the distance. Overall the colors and landscape aren't wowing for me. – Lucas 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Info But only under these weather conditions you have the typical (and impressive) cloudfall at the Cumbre Nueva. --Llez (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I didn't know that "tablecloth" thing with the clouds and the mountain happened other places besides Cape Town. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:San Francisco Columbarium Interior.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 22:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
  •   Info This is a view of the interior (upper floors) of the San Francisco Columbarium. Since 1898, the building serves as a repository for human ashes, stored in niches along the walls. I first visited the building seven years ago, after stumbling upon a newspaper article describing Meet your neighbors-for-eternity parties. As I only had an iPhone at hand in 2012, I felt it was worth the time and effort to reshoot this place with my current gear. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg.
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent picture of an interesting place. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really good photo. This is so weird to me since we don't have anything like this where I live, but it is the beauty of Commons to learn about other customs. --Cart (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A different piece of architecture --Poco2 17:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite a beautiful interior. Unusual subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint Martin church in Naucelle 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 21:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Yukon mirror.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
  •   Info Nameless lake in the woods of Yukon. Captured, uploaded & nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Serene composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Too much sky IMO --Llez (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Category? Reflection? -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The compo is a little bit too simple. That much almost white(blank) sky and its reflection doesn't work for the photo. It's probably one of those times when the real life experience was awesome but it doesn't translate to the photo. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think part of the air needs to be cut off. To balance the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It clearly needs a perspective correction and although the lighting is good there is too much sky on the top, it would definitively benefit from a crop to achieve better symmetry with the lower portion. If both issues adressed I would reconsider to change this opposing vote Poco2 17:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree that there's too much sky for my taste, but I also think there's too much water. This is indeed a peaceful scene, but to my eyes, the image more or less just sits there, with the exception of the obvious broadening from left to right. The piece of driftwood helps a little, and there's one cloud that subtly points to the right, but it's not enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, it just feels too empty as a whole. – Lucas 09:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan especially --Boothsift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Famberhorst.--Vulphere 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Solitary sandpiper in swamps.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
  •   Info Solitary sandpiper relaxing by the water in a warm afternoon. Taken somewhere in the swamps of Yukon. Captured, uploaded and nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lovely capture, nice and sharp, and with relatively little noise. Some might complain that the bird is too small in the frame, but I think it can be seen as an image of the bird in its natural habitat and so the background is valuable to have. Cmao20 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmao20: Thanks. This is the original size, uncropped. I have one more cropped so the bird is like 40 % of the frame but I decided to use this one on Wiki precisely because of the habitat/environment around and keep the informative value. Otherwise, I like the crop better, esthetically. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great capture of a bird in its natural environment. The sandpiper is quite small but the resolution and the quality are very good. I'd probably prefer to crop a bit from the bottom and even more from the top to place the bird in the middle - but it's good as it is anyway :) --Podzemnik (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Podzemnik: Thanks, as per above. Btw you can check the crop version on my profile at F***** to compare (don't wanna publish the link for the service here). -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The vertical composition helps emphasize the shallow depth of field and the various features of the habitat. -- King of ♠ 21:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too much background for a small bird. I would have cropped the image more tight to the bird in a landscape aspect ratio and with the eye right in the vertical center of the image. --Granada (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support See Granada note.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Granada Poco2 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Granada – Lucas 17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not good enough quality to crop. Charles (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just too busy to work for me as an FP even if it were cropped. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Granada.--Vulphere 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Probably a valuable image per Cmao20's point, but it would inspire me more if the bird were sharper, and I believe I recall sharper FPs of sandpipers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:African Cape Daisy (Osteospermum barberiae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 13:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info all by AntanO -- AntanO 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AntanO 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and simple. -- King of ♠ 15:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per KoH Poco2 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry but this doesn't seem completely sharp to me, at least not as sharp as some other flower pictures I've seen round here. Cmao20 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - It would be nice to know what the diameter of the flower is (AntanO, you might add that information to the file description if you have it), but it's sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely and simple. --Gnosis (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Can't get much better than this IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Cladophora glomerata in a wave at Govik 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae
  •   Info This algae is usually one of the slimiest and ickiest ones in Swedish waters, but like this when it's new and the sun is shining on it as it is moving within a lapping wave, I think it is rather beautiful. -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I have an urge to put this up on a wall—despite my hate of these ... plants? ;) – Lucas 11:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lovely abstract. Cmao20 (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support outstanding in so many ways! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful abstraction. -- King of ♠ 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support nice! --El Grafo (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support So awkward but so good. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom and others. Cart, once again, you have a really good eye to have noticed that this composition was available to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support An artwork from mother nature. But you have to see it.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Dreamy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Oberbaumbrücke November 2013 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support though the sky could be cropped a little bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Not balanced IMO; too much sky making the composition bottom-heavy, and also right-heavy as well. -- King of ♠ 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I will support both versions when a suitable crop is made to the foreground, to eliminate the little bits of something (boats?) toward the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco below. – Lucas 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Alt: cropEdit

 

  •   Info crop by me. Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Also fine. Cmao20 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for nomination and votes. 6 years later, I'm still very happy with my photos from Berlin.--ArildV (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality but the shadow on the left is not helping and the crane in the middle is just spoiling the image. The Oberbaum bridge does definitely have FP potential but I'd really enjoy seeing it here free of cranes and with a more interesting light, sorry. Poco2 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, the crane is just another perpendicular to me and doesn't damage the composition. To each his/her own. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco – Lucas 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose more or less per Poco. The shadow spoils it for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info View from the "Lummenfelsen" called rock on the island of Heligoland to the Lange Anna. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment maybe a bit underexposed? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, interesting scene and good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The midsummer 2PM lighting causes shadows to appear where you don't want them to appear, and the lit portions to be less vibrant than ideal. Also plenty of blown whites at the bottom. -- King of ♠ 14:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine shot . --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good, interesting composition, and extremely well-executed as usual. I have no problem with the shadows. Blown whites (bird excrement, I believe), if indeed blown, are minimal in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality but the lighting could have been more pleasant, sorry --A.Savin 23:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You have a good point. Your photo is better. Why don't you nominate it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Because it´s oversaturated. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I for myself have a rather low tolerance for overdone saturation, normally I take the green of the grass and/or the blue of the sky as reference and reduce the level. But whereas it is easy to reduce the whole saturation or chosen channels at any time afterwards, you cannot add much more light to your picture when you have taken it in weak light, and the beauty of Heligoland cliffs (including the colours) is only seen entirely when it is sufficiently lit. Anyone who juxtapose both picture see the difference immediately. Your picture may be correctly saturated, but the colours that I would like to see are definitely lost there. --A.Savin 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad light. -- -donald- (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH and A.Savin – Lucas 12:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can spend more light to the shadows if wanted, but I think in general shadows give more vividness to the relief as everywhere the same lighting. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Shadows of course add dimensionality - if they are in the right direction. Here the shadows go straight down unfortunately, making the scene look flat to me. -- King of ♠ 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Since I !voted for A. Savin's picture that didn't pass, I will say that this is just as good. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a surprisingly nice image to view at 100% zoom and scroll around, but if viewed as a whole it doesn't really convince me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 125-127 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main altar of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Taken in 2015, but still holds up as an FP today. I'd reduce the highlights a bit, and there is something - some kind of light streak - down in the centre by the altar that could be looked at.--Peulle (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Peulle: I've reduced the highlights and corrected a slight tilt. Regarding the light streak I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Could you please add a note? Poco2 19:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note added. Not sure what it is. The image is still good enough, though.--Peulle (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Peulle: I've removed the light streak (and the note) Poco2 16:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit too ornately baroque for my taste, but clearly FP and beautiful on its own terms. Cmao20 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support though this specific variant of baroque is a bit too much even for me - and I'm really into baroque generally --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Magnificent. -- King of ♠ 14:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Resplendent and a fine photo! You have one or two other FPs of this cathedral's interior, don't you? I recall they were of different views, but it would be good of you to link them in this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Boothsift 04:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Mary Mammoth September 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 02:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lake Benmore, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Driftwood on the beach north of Kaikoura, Canterbury, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Domaine de Maizerets park, Québec city, Canadá 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 17:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Was ready to oppose at first, but the detail at full resolution is excellent. I still think it's a bit low on wow, but overall worth a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow mainly due to the overcast day, the random people and big empty lawn in the foreground. The right crop is unsatisfying, the brown gravel field should have been included fully. – Lucas 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Lucas. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas, disturbing trees on the left/portion of the maze missing, uninteresting lighting, cluttered compo (what is the main element?) Poco2 17:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No todas las composiciones necesitan tener un sujeto principal, sin embargo, en este caso es el laberinto. Muchas gracias por tu pregunta --Wilfredor (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see why the photographer might have taken the image, but it doesn't work. There are just too many things here trying to be the subject, helped by the dull light. Perhaps the maze by itself from this angle might have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perhaps he's calling attention to some clichéd aspect of the photograph  . Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I like his happy, youthful appearance, though I agree with Cart, especially on the composition. But how historically important is this particular portrait? It seems to be the best one we've got on Commons, and he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure. We do have this reproduction of a painting, too, but it's below the normal minimum size for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I would say it is unique and unmatched in EV. Gagarin's face was scarred when he fell jumping off a balcony while escaping from his wife who had caught him cheating in September 1961. In case you are not aware, he became the first human in space in April 1961. So this is the only photo likely to be available of how he looked pre-incident and best representation of his appearance while he was on his historic first mission to space. It may also be the best/only clear portrait of him we have in general because he died in 1968. I do not know how to clean up the scratches around his chin. If any one is good at that I would welcome it. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm very much aware of Gagarin's pioneering voyage in space, which is why I wrote that "he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The italics was not intended for you. The dates are more important to answering your question. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, and it did help to answer my question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart as the lamp shade and chin shadow are serious photographical flaws and Commons FP are centered around photographic excellence. IMHO this fits far better with the goal of Wikipedia FP. – Lucas 21:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucasbosch, as this particular image doesn't appear to be that significant (he was the subject of lots of pictures, and this one doesn't stand out), and it's got the problems mentioned above. And I agree on en:WP:FP: "unmatched in EV" doesn't matter here as much as there. We can promote images passing COM:SCOPE even if they're not currently in use anywhere, while great educational value can't salvage a not-so-good photo. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Do you have any thoughts about another photo of him that would be a better FP candidate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative   Support, pending a satisfactory answer to this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, but quite sure it is a Wikipedia FP. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart and the pose. The side glance and the weird smile undermine the dignity of his uniform and make the picture an unresolvable contradiction (Perhaps, per my remark to Cart, that's what's being lampshaded! Bah-DUMP-ump ... crasssssshhhhh! Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I suppose you'll "be here all week" and we should "remember to tip the waitress".   --Cart (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:BNSF GE Dash-9 C44-9W Kennewick - Wishram WA.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  I'm not an expert on trains, but train tracks do have some banking in curves (some more than others) and some trains are also able to mechanically lean to the side. This photo at least shows the track banking for sure. – Lucas 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per that explanation, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Baikal ice on sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 16:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District
  •   Info Lake Baikal in winter. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Please don't pixel-peep this to death. At that latitude in January you need high ISO at sunset since the ice is probably moving a bit with the waves. The big size of the file makes up for it. I wouldn't mind an English description though. --Cart (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Cart for the explanation on the circumstances. Often reviewers don't know why or even if certain settings were chosen. – LucasT 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Rather noisy, but very spectacular --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree that this is a very spectacular photo and overall worth a feature, but it is (understandably, as Cart explains) quite noisy, and even downsized to 5000px across some noise is still visible. It's not terrible though, so I still support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noisy but still good enough for FP --Boothsift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's spectacular, but I don't understand why we are not asking for it to be de-noised before we support a feature. It's already problematic at 250% and slightly at 200% of my 13-inch laptop screen. And in this case, I don't think the size of the photo is an argument for a feature, because it looks bad at full size and we probably shouldn't be looking at it at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan, FYI, zoom levels above 100 % usually denote zooming in further than the 1:1 pixel level, so picture pixels would actually get upscaled on your monitor. I'm sure you meant the opposite, being zoomed in a moderate amount, still above pixel level, approx. 50 % zoom or less. – LucasT 07:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you didn't read my remark carefully. I'm talking about percentages of the size of my 13-inch laptop screen, not percentages of the huge size of the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan, when you get noise at high ISO levels, de-noising will often ruin the photo. The de-noising programs can only merge and extrapolate the "missing" information so far. The result is often a smooth and plastic-looking photo since you lose all sharp edges and in most places the "noise grains" will bunch together and form artifacts instead. A photo like this will lose some of its crispness. Even a slight noise reduction would make it look over-processed or like taken with a cheap mobile. --Cart (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a pity. Do you think there could have been a way to get a little more sharpness and less noise when the photo was taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You could probably have taken it with that time and a lower ISO and added the light in post-processing; that would have made it less noisy but instead you would have lost bright colors and details in the ice. Or you could have sacrificed the DOF and made only the nearest ice sharp; that way you could do a less noisy photo. In some cases, everything is a compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan and others, this is a version of the photo downsized to "normal"/acceptable size with a bit of noise reduction (you can do NR on a high ISO photo if you downsize it first). It is nicer to look at when opening at full size, BUT in the process a lot of information is now lost. It has gone from 19.05 MB to 4.08 MB. Isn't it better to have the full original version? --Cart (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The original is much nicer to look at, the world has plenty of mushy noise-reduced images already. – Lucas 12:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, I just wanted to show how it would look since not all voters are used to how post-processing works. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the demonstration. I agree that the original is superior to the edited version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs denoising. At least selective denoising. Great lighting and compo but the noise is just too much. Poco2 14:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks providing me with my new desktop background!
  •   Neutral Nice photo but somewhat overcooked. (1) Noise is not the issue here. Noise is the most overrated problem here on FPC ever. That said, I think at 38mm focal length an aperture of f/5.6 would have done it, too. Then it would have been possible to lower the ISO to 200 which would have reduced the noise significantly. However, it is always easy to critize such a photo sitting at home in front of your computer. On location you sometimes don't have the time to try different settings or you don't immediately see a flaw that can be seen on a computer screen. Additionally EXIF says that the exposure has been increased somewhat (+0.57) in postprocessing which may explain the amount of noise since the D800 IMO would normally not create so much noise at only ISO 800. (2) EXIF also says that the author increased clarity, vibrance and saturation which was for my taste somewhat too much, that's why I vote neutral here. --Code (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy. --Rbrechko (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose could be mitigated by denoising --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, Too much noise for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, largely per Code; image quality issues unfortunately go beyond what should have been easily tamed ISO noise. It seems that a combination of heavy-handed sharpening and NR have created an unpleasant and artificial-looking grain. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose due to the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry. A great composition, but too much noise. --XRay talk 11:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Petra Jordan BW 2009-11-10 12-33-49.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 12:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Jordan
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition, distracting tree covering up a large part of the subject, bad depth perception due to the light direction, distracting tourists. Low pixel detail and humongous CAs in the lower right. – LucasT 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good photo on the whole, but the tree is a bit distracting, and I agree about the CAs. I think we can probably do a bit better for such a commonly photographed monument. Cmao20 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition as Lucas notes, the tree is also fairly distracting IMO. --Boothsift 23:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - What other direction would be better for this motif than straight-on and centered? I'm confused by that criticism. I think that there are other factors at issue but not that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tree in front sort of spoils it for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not boring! I would not have expected trees in the dry area. It does not bother me at all to see this documented. The motive is worth seeing and the quality is very good. --Milseburg (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A fine shot. I don't mind the tree, it adds some colour to the rather monochrome main motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Because of the severe CAs in the lower right --Llez (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, the tree ruins it for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Having been to Ad-Dair myself, it's really hard to say what the best possible angle is (I like this one if we're going to go with the frontal angle). But I do think that as appealing as it is to shoot from that Bedouin café which is never in any images of the place, you probably should not have the tree. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Quedlinburg CastleEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
  •   Info Quedlinburg Castle and Collegiate Church at early evening and the same view at dusk after sunset ----- all by me, --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose These are lovely but for FP of such a set there should have been at least a good attempt made to align the two images to each other, right know too much is changing position most noticeable on the sides. Sadly the focal lengths and dimensions are not uniform and the camera position was shifted vertically between the shots by a significant distance. These last two points are of lesser importance though. – LucasT 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Overall, absolutely brilliant. Lucas is right that they could be aligned to each other a little bit better, but not enough to stop me supporting. Lovely, sharp, high-resolution photos of the castle from an excellent angle, and good to have a night and a day view. You could choose to denoise the sky a bit in the night photo, but again it's not a very serious issue for me. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the small difference. The human eye perceives things differently at day vs evening/night too. --Cart (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It'd be cool to have the photos aligned better but still great :) --Podzemnik (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The noise on top of the blue hour image could be cleaned up a little more, as well as the CA in the same area of the daylight image, though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:עץ על אי מלח באמצע ים המלח.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 09:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Eranrez - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quite an unusual image, but I'd feel happier if the sky were de-noised. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Interesting image but there are question-marks over the quality, especially the sky as Ikan points out but more generally there's a bit of colour noise. It also looks to me like there's a bit of barrel distortion, with the horizon visibly curving up at one end and down at the other. Cmao20 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice composition but the quality is not enough for such a small photo. A GoPro camera is not ideal for FPs. And as the description says, it's a tourist destination so not that hard to get to for someone with a fairly good camera. (I've been there myself but that was pre the tree.) --Cart (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Moving to   Support now after I had a better look--Boothsift 04:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Cmao20 – LucasT 07:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I seldom see images as particular as this one here in FPC. Denoising would be good but the wow effect is compensating that. To be honest, I don't understand why this picture is not getting more support. Poco2 14:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Ok, I gave the file some TLC and removed some of the color noise and corrected the barrel distortion a bit, not all the way though since the shore curves slightly. Please revert this if you don't like it. 'Pinging' voters about the change: Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Boothsift, Lucasbosch and Poco. Myself I'm changing to   Neutral after this. I hope Eranrez and Tomer T are ok with this, otherwise I apologize. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cart: Now that we're in the process to improve the image, don't you think that we should reduce the vignetting on the top left? I can give it a try if you like. Poco2 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Poco, I already did some vignetting adjustment in my edit, I think the gradient is due to natural light since it stayed after the correction and it follows the way the shadow of the tree points. I see such phenomena a lot in my photos taken on clear days over water. Let's leave it as it is now, I think it is acceptable. We should be as respectful as possible to the author. The dark sky matches the darker water on that side well. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't know. I see the improvement, but the tree was sharper and bigger in the original, and the photo is still fairly noisy. I like the composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Like I said in the ice photo, you will always lose some sharpness with NR. That's the downside of it. --Cart (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, second and final edit from me. I reverted only the tree since it didn't go well with the NR as Ikan pointed out. Cart out. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you, Cart. I wish it were less noisy, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect but it's definitely got the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support I wish the resolution and the sharpness would be better. --XRay talk 11:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Rhönschaf-Weidberg bei Kaltenwestheim HBP-2019-04-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 21:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

How do you do define the direction from where the light is coming, Ikan? I actually had the sun, for what was shining through some clouds, behind me. So I'd expect that the head is as lit as possible... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, the brightest thing in the picture is the sky, and the sheep's head is very dark indeed, and I don't mean just that it's black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good, well-composed QI but I think it doesn't have the extra something special for FP. The light is all a little bit dull. Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan --Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20 – LucasT 07:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support the head of the animal is black and we cant change it --Wilfredor (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Wilfredor --Llez (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Wilfredor -- Eatcha (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, not outstanding enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per CMao20
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The head of the animal is not pure black, just like snow or clouds are never pure white. Sure, photographing animals with black fur is difficult, but it is possible. In any case, that's not even the main issue here, as basically the whole foreground looks underexposed. --El Grafo (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Praporec (v zime) 001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 19:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Interesting composition, maybe a bit too much in shadow, but on balance I think it works. Cmao20 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many trees and branches in the foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - the foreground in shadow contrasts nicely with the direct light on the mountain, making for a dynamic scene. I have no problem with the composition, which manages the chaotic forest environment quite well – see for example how the group of evergreens on the right balances out the cluster of tall trees on the left. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Being a slightly cluttered composition and with too many distractions it doesn't work for me. – LucasT 07:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Juliancolton -- Eatcha (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow; the kind of view hiking guidebooks describe as limited. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Paisaje en Sutton, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 98-106 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 17:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hohenmirsberg P7171141-Pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info A panorama of Hohenmirsberg, a district of the town of Pottenstein in northern Bavaria. Created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks all right, but since many of the houses are obscured due to the angle and the light is a bit boring, I don't see the big wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, 对不起--Boothsift 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It nicely captures the village nestled into the surrounding countryside and the layers of fields, houses, forests and sky. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The uninteresting yellow strip in the foreground ruins it. -- King of ♠ 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the yellow strip. It gives a stroger feeling of rural scene --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per B2Belgium. I find it nice to look at. Interesting layering compositon. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I appreciate the work that clearly went into making this, but it just doesn't wow me, perhaps because not only as Peulle points out the light is unremarkable, but also because the WB is too much on the warm side. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support First I thought that the light was boring, but looking again at the photo I consider it a good example what to make from such lighting. I second B2Belgium’s remarks. --Aristeas (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Paracanthurus-hepatus-paletten-doktorfisch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info created and uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the highest resolution, but all the resolution we have is sharp and crisp. Very good overall. Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very attractive.--Vulphere 11:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The crop is very close, can this be changed? --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support As the camera has 4.752 × 3.168 Pixel, a lesser close crop should be possible --Llez (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great quality but tight crop, strong shadows and aquarium picture Poco2 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 14:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose tight crop and unsightly shadow behind the fish. – Lucas 21:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Jharkot Village-Upper Mustang Trek-1281.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 09:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose per below. – Lucas 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks harmonious and well-composed to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Brown jagged shapes offset the blue smooth shapes very nicely. In most human habitations it is hard not to cut something and you will have to go with "the lesser of two evils", but please remove the red CA mostly at the bottom. --Cart (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please have a look at the red borders of the white flags (CAs and artefacts), especially at the house in the left lower corner and the unsharpness in the same region. --Llez (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me it's interesting, but not necessarily good. You have a lot of layers (brown, dark brown, blue, blue-brown) but they just don't come together as a whole and present a cohesive message to me. Sorry. -- King of ♠ 02:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Llez and King of Hearts. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Cart has the best support argument IMO but the opposers are also right; I'd like to see the red CA removed as well before I can make up my mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I went back and forth on this one for a long time. But ultimately, this photo is so picturesque, and the lines in it really work and I think it's acceptable to tolerate that little piece of something at the near left corner. However, this is the kind of panorama in which I think "pixel-peeping" is legitimate, and I do see some clear red CA and halos in the near left quadrant. I don't feel I should support this photo until it's fixed. Bijay, please address this, as a number of folks in this thread have mentioned it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Henry39 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Baden Königshöhe 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 04:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower_Austria
  •   Info Königshöhle (King's Cave) near Baden bei Wien, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 07:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's very well-composed and good quality, but it just doesn't inspire me somehow. But I won't oppose seeing everyone else seems to like it. Cmao20 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as I share Cmao20's sentiment. The camera position is pretty ordinary and I'm missing more clear compositional clues so it looks like casual mid-day tourist shot to me. It's a pity the sunlight landing on the ground is obscured by that rock, another angle would have shown that better. – LucasT 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 17:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Tarian Gandrung sewu 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 21:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Another good one of these, but I can't shake the feeling that it would be a better picture if there wasn't that sign in the top-right corner (I know the sign is related to the event, but even so). Cmao20 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That sign is very problematic, it looks like a very blurry watermark. Otherwise, this image is good enough for FP. --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support nice image but per Cmao20 the sign in the top-right is distracting.--Vulphere 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift --Cart (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift sorry ---Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose but not just the sign, pretty much all the background elements are going haiwire in all directions so distract from the main subjects. One of them is visually growing out of the woman in front. The bottom crop on her and the one cut in half face further behind aren't very satisfying either. – LucasT 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. --Gnosis (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. --Eatcha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Mimihitam (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ëures Resciesa Mont de dora Crist Gherdëina.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 17:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Another beautiful one, and with the immense resolution typical of your work. Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically it's great, the weather is nice and the nature is wonderful. But I'm missing a clear subject or compositional idea. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The subject are the porphyr cliffs as written in the description --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo and I find the mid-day light too boring. Also the focus was set too far the far mountains are rendered much sharper than the slightly blurry foreground with the tourists. – LucasT 08:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment What you say, pardon me, does not make sense. How can the tourists, several hundred meters away, be out of focus and the background be in focus with an aperture of f/11? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, right, this shouldn't be the cause but still there is a clear difference in sharpness. My oppose doesn't hinge on that, the other points are more important to me. – LucasT 18:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think Lucas is imagining this, I can see it too. I think you have a heat haze area hanging over the nearer sunlit rocks on the left. It will do very strange things with your photos. Take a look at how distorted/blurry the houses on the right side in this photo are, while this photo taken from the same point of a location over four times as far away, but over the cooler sea, is not very affected. That day, the photos taken towards the sea were acceptable but I had to throw away all the photos taken inland of the town. I had gone there to make a panorama of the old town in Lysekil (to the right of the houses in the first photo and further inland), but they turned out beyond bad. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, no, I was commenting on this photo (providing link for clarity). Perhaps you somehow misunderstood what I wrote. Lucas mentioned a "slightly blurry foreground with the tourists" and I provided a possible explanation for it using my own photos/experience as examples. Nature can play tricks on us even if we have extraordinary cameras. Anyway, I will not be offended by you striking my comment since it is your nomination. --Cart (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I lacks wow, sorry Poco2 17:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Italy