Open main menu

Commons:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas

Shortcut: COM:CID 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 | +/−

Aquí están las candidatas a imágenes destacadas

Ten en cuenta que todo el proceso se realiza en inglés por lo que necesitarás conocimientos mínimos de éste para poder presentar una nueva nominación.



Si crees que hay alguna foto en Commons lo suficientemente atractiva como para estar entre las imágenes destacadas, entonces por favor inclúyela en la lista de candidaturas editando este enlace. Si hay consenso general después de 10 días, la imagen se transferirá a imágenes destacadas.

Crear una nueva nominaciónEdit

Paso 1: copia el nombre de la imagen y pégalo en este cuadro (incluyendo el prefijo Image: ), cuando ya hayas pegado el nombre de la imagen, por ejemplo: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:EL-NOMBRE-DE-TU-IMAGEN.JPG. Haz clic en el botón crear nueva nominación.

Paso 2: Sigue las instrucciones que verás en la página para rellenar los campos de información de tu imagen.

Paso 3: Manualmente inserta un enlace a la página que has creado sobre tu imagen arriba del todo en Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Haz clic aquí, y añade la siguiente línea ARRIBA en la página de nominaciones:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EL-NOMBRE-DE-TU-IMAGEN.JPG}}

Para votarEdit

Para votar puedes usar las siguientes plantillas:

  • {{Support}} (  Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (  Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (  Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (  Comment),
  • {{Info}} (  Info),
  • {{Question}} (  Question).

Puedes indicar que una imagen no puede ser destacada con {{FPX|razón}}, donde en razón explicas los motivos claramente por los que no puede ser destacada.

Por favor explica brevemente porque estas a favor o en contra de la nominación de esa imagen, especialmente cuando votes en contra.

Puedes hacer comentarios en el idioma que quieras, aunque más vale tener en cuenta el hecho de que la mayor parte de los usuarios hablan inglés.


  • Hay 9 días de deliberaciones. Se decide el resultado al día 10 después de la nominación.
  • Los usuarios anónimos pueden proponer candidatas.
  • Los usuarios anónimos pueden participar en la discusión.
  • Los votos de usuarios anónimos no cuentan.
  • Una nominación no cuenta automáticamente como un voto. Debes expresar tu apoyo de forma explícita.

La candidata se convertirá en una imagen destacada a condición de:

  • estar bajo una licencia libre (por supuesto)
  • que haya un mínimo de cinco votos a favor
  • que la proporción de votos a favor / en contra sea al menos 2/1 (o sea, una mayoría de dos tercios o 67%)


Recarga para nuevas nominaciones: purge this page's cache


Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Kelp gull portrait, New Brighton, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 20:48:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Wilfredor: I tried a different crop. Posterization was caused by me playing with the temperature too much so I've restored the original version. I'm not sure what you mean by reflections. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Posterization is gone, cut is better and underexposition IMHO is fixed, I love the natural colors --Wilfredor (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Until another look later--Boothsift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:View from Isthmus Peak Trail to Lake Hawea, New Zealand 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 20:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Snow
  •   Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a view to Lake Hawea. What is interesting about this photo is that you can see that it's snowing there. The day was fairly warm so the snow didn't make it all the way down to the lake but it made it to the mountain tops. I'm standing around the snow line so you can see that on the left ridge the snow is presented but just a little bit down the ridge the snow doesn't reach the ground and melts before it has a chance to touch the surface. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Hereford Cathedral Lady Chapel, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 15:33:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info The lady chapel at Hereford Cathedral, Herefordshire, England. This early English chapel is one of the largest of its kind in any English cathedral, and is especially renowned for the five lancet windows at the east end, clearly visible in this image. Note that this is the fourth and final member of a set of images of the cathedral nominated on English Wikipedia, the other three images already being featured on Commons. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:View to Piran from St. George's Parish Church, Piran, Slovenia 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 15:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 12:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rotmilan IMG 7373.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 11:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment So far you have had four users helping you fix this nomination for you. In the future, could you please read the information on COM:FPC more carefully. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ivan Shishkin - Рожь - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 05:39:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Ivan Shishkin - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 05:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine (✉) 05:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only 9MP means we lack detail compared to many of our FP paintings and in particular we are usually spoiled by Google Art Project paintings many many times more detailed than this -- this is like a thumbnail in comparison. The crop in the top left is poor and the image has significant vignetting in the corners, either due to the lens or bad lighting. I don't see what is "among our finest" about this photographic rendering of a painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't care so much about the resolution, but all the other points made by Colin I entirely agree. --Stepro (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the artwork very much, but Colin makes some good points. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, Pine, the painting is really great but I'd expect better quality. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The quality is not FP level--Boothsift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:MG-002-0038 Antiguo Congreso NacionalBW 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 23:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Anonymous
    Unknown author
    - uploaded by Mauricio V. Genta - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Another version without desaturate the color saturation Ezarateesteban 23:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Compositionally average, and the sides are also dirty. Perhaps a VI to show what the building formerly looked like, but not an FP for me. -- King of ♠ 05:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King of Hearts, it's a very useful image but for me just not interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the King--Boothsift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Val de Funes cun la Odles d'auton Südtirol.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 19:24:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  •   Info created & uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The contrail really has to be carefully edited out. Such trails are temporary so I don't think there are any ethical issues with removing them, and more than removing dust spots. This one is too distracting. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I'm a fan of reality as it is. These includes (in the opposite to dust spots produced by the camera) people on squares, sheep on meadows, and here the crane above the house (also temporary) and the contrails in the sky. --Stepro (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Moroder: Your statement "Feel free to use my photos, but please mention me as the author and send me a message." contradicts in the last part, in my opinion, the CC license. In addition, you require the version 3.0-de above, and below the version 4.0 of the license. You have to decide please. --Stepro (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Stepro, "mention me as author" is of course required by the licence. I take the "but please.... send me a message" to be a request rather than a requirement, so it doesn't contradict the licence. Another example, you may release your work under CC0, which waives all rights, and still request attribution and a notification. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice colors, would be better a little wider but nonetheless great shot. -- King of ♠ 05:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support maybe per Colin. Du machst Dich um das Ladinische wirklich verdient, Wolfgang ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks surreal. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Matthias Süßen (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

*  Oppose Sorry, but the license must be clear. In the author field it is 3.0-de, in the box below "license-header" it is 4.0. I will change my vote to support as soon as it is fixed. --Stepro (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment @Stepro: I'm not very familiar with licenses but I don't see any License 3.0-de in the author field. Couldn't I simply fix it deleting the "license-header"? Regards --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just found out, it's only in German language, but not in English. I will write you on your Talk page, here OK for me. --Stepro (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's a little bit too bright, but still a great quality photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stepro (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-06-02 BeachVolleyball, Die Techniker beach tour Nürnberg StP 1983 LR10 by Stepro.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 14:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Stepro (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Stepro (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is not on the right side. The guy in the middle is distracting. Cluttered composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a sports photo. That said you are (especially at larger events) not free in choice of your position, you can't tell staff to move away from the scene and you can't repeat a scene. Regarding all this it is sharp, you can see the movement of the spraying champagne and it is reasonably lit, a clear wow moment for the participants and wowy enough for me to support it. --Granada (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. Charles (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition doesn't work for me --Boothsift 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Poster for Jules Massenet's La Navarraise with Emma Calvé in the rôle of Anita.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 14:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Keep it in /Non-photographic media#Posters and advertisement. There are already other posters that include photos or drawings based on photos in that cat. It's best to think: "Hmmm, now where would I find posters for entertainment?" When you start to fix up old movie posters, we'll just make a new category for that. :-) --Cart (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hehe, that doesn't count since it is pure drawing. --Cart (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ezarateesteban 23:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It seems to me like your nominations have better and better resolution :) --Podzemnik (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Podzemnik: I can't promise that'll be a permanent trebd - lots of non-posters to do as well - but I have a pretty good stash of high-res ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry, but it doesn't wow me. Otherwise, I would support it--Boothsift 00:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Boothsift: That 's fair. As I said on en-wiki, I think a big part of this image's wow - that a photograph could be enlarged this much, which wouldn't really be a regular thing until the 1920s - is permanently lost. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:IMG drongo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 12:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good effort, but too much colour noise and lack of sharpness on the wing, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Peulle --Stepro (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition. Yes, there are parts not sharp, the wings, but the bird is moving ... --Neptuul (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but noisy picture, and low level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Puelle Seven Pandas (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin.--Vulphere 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately per Basile, great capture but probably not FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know that the bird is moving, but what Basile says still applies. --Boothsift 00:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 04:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Matteo Morando - uploaded by Matteo Morando - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine (✉) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Slightly bothered by the lack of perfect symmetry but otherwise great shot. -- King of ♠ 04:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed on the sides (shadows are crushed to black), overal too high contrast, and CAs on all the windows. Camera position was not in the center it seems (see escalators). Pixel detail is quite low although the camera is quite capable (max. 36 Mpx). Needs slight sharpening. – Lucas 06:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a remarkable sight, certainly with wow. This airport is only recently completed, so I would expect more images to come. This one is technically weak/downsized per Lucas. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe it's not technical perfect, but all in all it's a FP for me. --Stepro (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose copyvio from -- Eatcha (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  Info That is very unlikely. The photo on Commons has all EXIF data, which has no on the website you specified. --Stepro (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment It is not uncommon for photographers to upload a couple of their photos here on Commons to get a bit more exposure for their work. You could ask the author for an COM:OTRS ticket just to be on the safe side. Most of us have been in similar situations. I had to supply an OTRS for a photo that was harvested from my Flickr account before I had time to upload it here. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why the date on the EXIF is 18 March 2018, the airport was not open for the public at that time see infobox . On the contrary Mott_MacDonald provided building engineering services for the development, thus they were easily able to photograph it before it was Opened for public. -- Eatcha (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is being discussed at the photo's deletion request, let's keep that conversation there. There were several previews of the airport before it opened, or the photographer could simply work for a PR company with early access, be a salesperson in one of the stores in the airport or something. That doesn't matter if he want to make his photos available here under a Commons license and can confirm to the OTRS people that the photo is his. --Cart (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Dramatic shot, and great architecture, but quality is not perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the others above, the quality is not FP level IMO--Boothsift 00:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Burr on a beech 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 18:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
  •   Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't get the crop, you don't even show the whole burr and this top part doesn't look distinct enough to have it make sense. It looks as if there was something hidden on the burr we should be looking at instead. – Lucas 19:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The rest of the burr was uninteresting and it was bisected horizontally by a big shadow. --Cart (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's without any question a QI for me, but the composition is too common for me. --Stepro (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support FP for me -- Eatcha (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry I don't see what's special here. Even the light is average -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Kleiber Sitta europaea-0447.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 16:59:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bologoe asv2018-08 img21.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 14:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Coralliophila costularis 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 05:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Well, not really. Charles (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Harmony of Life.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 05:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
  •   Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support and It's uploaded today just 10 minutes ago. WOW, benefit of patrolling latest file-- Eatcha (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm a bit torn here. The motif is great and so is the first impression. Upon taking a second glance though, I've noticed some technical issues such as sharpness and maybe also lighting. But since it's a rather large file one shouldn't be pixelpeeping too much, I guess. Both title and description should be changed/amended, however --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but per Martin, the text needs some work. The description should be changed right now to something more Wikipedia-like without the emotional speculations and as soon as the nom is closed, the title must be changed too. --Cart (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have fixed some of this plus the categories. Please Eatcha, you have to check that the categories are in order and according to Commons:Categories standard before you nominate an image. If that page is too complicated, you can take a look at the "Cat lesson" I gave another user some time ago. --Cart (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ~ Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But please change the file name once the nomination is over. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect, but National Geographic stuff for sure --A.Savin 14:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Henry39 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 18:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the sharpest but really high wow factor. -- King of ♠ 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, fantastic! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite the noise --Llez (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stepro (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support lovely composition and athmosphere. Charles (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per A. Savin Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --ThomasLendt (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very lovely--Wilfredor (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 12 Dvenadsat Apostolov - Restoration, cropped.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 22:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Stadler and Pattinot after Vasily Ignatius - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Looks really good, but I like the original, too. I take it, you're totally sure the differences between the original and this file are completely explained by yellowing and otherwise darkening that took place over time, but how sure are you of these brightness levels specifically? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I've compared it to the Gallica copy. The paper was quite yellowed, so it does appear that that was adding a lot of yellow to the inks. Levels are compromised between this and the Gallica copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - OK, that's good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Isurus oxyrinchus Machoire.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 21:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint Julian church in Cassagnes-Begonhes 12.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 21:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The first of each pair are smaller images but they are hugely superior. In second of each pair, the red is burnt out to orange. The two shades of blue background are separated by extreme contrast such that the lighter shade is white. The delicate facial features are lost in a heavy handed rendering that looks jaundiced instead of skintone. Joseph's tunic changes from fawn brown to gold. The subtle grey geometric artwork in the bottom half of the second pair is rendered with a green tint, and the yellow hoops burnt out to white in places. All the images in the set by Tournasol7 have the same extreme processing that has exaggerated the saturation, contrast and completely blown the bright colours and tones, while darkening any shades to total black. I would really appreciate if those who supported could take a second look, compare against our best, consider the high technical standard required, our requirement for the subject to have wow. If you still think it is an FP, would dearly like to know why. -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Vietnam War protestors at the March on the Pentagon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 19:44:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Eatcha, yes it is grainy. That is because it is taken with Photographic film and all such old photos look sort of like that. The Film grain is one of the properties of such images, I guess you are to young to know about things like this. :-) Anyway, the grain should not be "fixed". --Cart (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very evocative for me as very few faces are shown.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Grain is acceptable given the era. I find the image an interesting piece of historical documentation that deserves a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   +1 it's really an important issue per List of the lengths of United States participation in wars (17.4 years) -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a particularly interesting shot, not a particularly important moment by itself (if needed prob Nov 15, '69 should be singled out). -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle --Boothsift 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree others Seven Pandas (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality is pretty much what you can expect from this kind of shot. Being a documentary photograph of a public event, it was probably taken on regular 135 film. So it will have more pronounced grain than the studio portraits taken on medium or large format film that we usually get to see here. That being said, I'll have to agree with Peulle as well. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even in the 60s (and earlier) it was possible to take sharp pictures without any grain. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Not a picture that evokes the era well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 175-178 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Looks like an excellent photo, but does the river really curve as shown? If not, please detail what kind of projection you used in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek: It's a 180-degree panorama of cylindric projection. I have documented it along with the exact location Poco2 12:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Distortions at the edges are unavoidable to some extent. Great panorama overall. Cmao20 (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice wow here. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great view. Some blown parts, but unavoidable when pointing the camera at the sun. -- King of ♠ 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Support --Llez (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Beautifull panorama, I will change my vote if the distortion is fixed. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Volcán Miñiques, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 52-55 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dode roek. Locatie. Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. 01-06-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Eatcha: A bit of an overstatement  . You can count the fly here as practically dead as it is being eaten. This beetle appears to be mounted. File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPG also depicts a dead animal. Sorry for ruining the fun --Boothsift 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't remembered those images that you mentioned, maybe I'm more concerned about the big ones. -- Eatcha (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha, Boothsift: We also have this one. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Podzemnik:@Eatcha: We should make a list/gallery of some sorts. --Boothsift 04:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
We already have Category:Dead organisms. Knock yourselves out. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
True, but what about one for only FPs? I'll make one. --Boothsift 04:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Poor guy. You're sure he had a crash? Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
*Answer: this Corvus frugilegus was probably killed by a power struggle within the colony.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but check the WB, green seems to be oversaturated --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Answer: the light was very soft that afternoon. See also the other pictures of the bird.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Belgium 1835 40 Francs.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 13:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castle in Narok (Norok), Silesia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 12:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tree obstructs the building. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. And it's not just one tree. I find the placement of the trees annoying, and it's a nice stylized castle, so I want a clear look at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others – Lucas 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann--Boothsift 17:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I quite like it, I think the building is visible enough, the colours are lovely and the angle seems ok. Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 05:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Friends Towers, Munich, June 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 09:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eisvogel kingfisher.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 05:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Frank-2.0 uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Perfect composition, and great combination of colors with the yellow lichen: a natural example of the 3 primary colors. Yann (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 15:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry for killing the mood, but having seen my fair share of kingfishers in the wild there is significantly too much saturation in the picture. This orange cannot be explained with perfect light conditions. Otherwise a great shot, with perfect posture and beautiful detail :-( C-M (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@C-M: The species is orange though, just adding that--Boothsift 18:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: Yes they are, over the years I have probably seen around 50 in the wild. If you have a look around you will find many excellent natural pictures here which are not that orange and more brownish. Feel free to compare with drawn field guides as these tend to have a fairly realistic color rendition, I have the Collins bird guide here on my desk as an additional reference («... underparts and cheek patch warm orangey brownish-red ...»). C-M (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded a more realistic version with the saturation reduced by 30% - not sure whether I did the licensing correctly, I had to remove the flickr reviewer part of the description for the upload to pass, so feel free to fix potential problems there. C-M (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@C-M: You can upload a new version of the original file instead. As the bot is glitchy, I have removed the picture. --Boothsift 04:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I intentionally did not want to change the original as that would interfere with the candidacy. We could nominate the desaturated version as an alternate, but we should in that case probably notify everyone who left already a vote. C-M (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per C-M. – Lucas 06:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per C-M --Stepro (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Invalid vote--Boothsift 20:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, first c&p mistake and than blind on both eyes. I fixed my vote. --Stepro (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Meissen Böttger 1935.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 22:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me Ezarateesteban 00:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support These images by you are always good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Until I looked at them real close up I thought they were chocolate. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - There's an area on the bottom part on the left that's not so sharp. I assume this is a regular-sized coin, though, in which case, all of the photo is pretty damn sharp for the coin's size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC) The diameter is 36 mm, see file description. --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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: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)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per the opposes, but I don't feel like opposing it right now. --Boothsift 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support With everyone talking about the unsharp bit, I was expecting it to be really obviously terrible, but it’s only a small part of the image and isn’t very distracting. Overall I like it a lot, notwithstanding some flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me, it's the distortion at upper left and the halo around the cliff edge, suggesting that it was overdarkened. Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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)
  •   Oppose per others --Boothsift 21:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretfully per Cart, though it would be lovely to have an FP of this important event. Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Might have worked with better processing and less distractions. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 22 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)
  •   Comment - I'm seeing the halos on the upper reaches of the lighthouse. User:ValentinManus, if you would eliminate the halos effectively, I would support this nomination because the form works for me and the low angle is interesting, making me feel like I'm on the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--Boothsift 21:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is actually quite good, and certainly rather beautiful, despite the slight halos. I don’t see any great issue with over processed colours. Cmao20 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:F18 aboard USS Carl Vinson.jpg,Edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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)
  • After a second look, I'm going to go with   Oppose mainly for the issues noted by Lucas and Cart--Boothsift 22:20, 23 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)
  •   Oppose Too much clarity and burnt sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I think that the photographer had a good idea but the person at right that partially blocks the view of the principal subject is sub-optimal. --Pine (✉) 21:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart and Lucas, it’s dramatic but composition and quality are not FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:33, 21 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)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support How beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.10.-02-Wendisch Rietz--Kaisermantel-Maennchen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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)
  •   Provisional oppose due to licensing issue I think that the image is great, but I have a concern. The file page says "Overwriting my file is prohibited. If a different version is created, it must be uploaded under use of the template derivative under another name and linked here. The Category Images by Hockei has to be added in the other version." I am not aware of a Commons policy that allows an author to place a restriction on the file like this. The author seems to be licensing this image with a variation of the Creative Commons license, and as far as I know custom licenses such as this are not allowed on Commons. Please consider revising the license of the file. --Pine (✉) 21:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Not at all what you say. I just want anybody not to overwrite my file. I have my reason for that. Look at here. This user Amara overwrote my file with a thumbnail again and again. But my work is my work. Anybody can use my picture according the cc by-sa **. Therefore what you write is completely nonsense. Please don't bring me in a discussion for that. I have no time the next few weeks. Just think twice before you write such stupid stuff. --Hockei (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
What that user did was simple vandalism. They should have been blocked for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pine: Agree with Hockei, this is Commons-only, non-copyright restriction in line with COM:OVERWRITE guidelines. -- King of ♠ 04:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hockei, King of Hearts: thanks for the comments. I think that a creator requesting that others not overwrite the file is okay, and I think that a creator requesting that others contact the creator first before overwriting a file is okay. However, unless I have overlooked something in COM:OVERWRITE, I do not believe that a creator is permitted on Commons to make a permanent and complete prohibition against someone else from overwriting a file. My comment here is not intended to support edit wars regarding versions of a file. If Hockei changes the comment on the file page from "Overwriting my file is prohibited." to "Please do not overwrite this file without consulting me first, and if you want to edit the file then I request that you upload the derivative as a separate file.", I would be okay with that request, and I hope that Hockei will agree to this softer wording. Thank you. --Pine (✉) 00:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment And what has this to do with the FPC-nomination? You demand compliance with rules from others and don't stick to it yourself. Find a valid reason for your oppose or cancel it. Everything else will be clarified later at another place. --Hockei (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hockei: I agree with Pine that you should consider a softer wording than "prohibited" simply to create a more collegial atmosphere. That said, I don't think this restriction is meant to apply to the license and hence cannot render it invalid (i.e. I don't think Hockei intends to hold those overwriting his file on Commons in violation of the license, merely in violation of COM:OVERWRITE guidelines). And to be technical about it, is overwriting others' files really not prohibited? Per IAR there is no dividing line between makruh and haram, only a sliding scale of undesirable actions. If someone persisted in overwriting other people's files after being repeatedly asked not to, a block could very well be in order. -- King of ♠ 01:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb work, I think this is one of your best. Cmao20 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great compo Poco2 18:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /\--Boothsift 00:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)