Open main menu

Commons:Candidatas a imagens especiais

Estas imagens são as candidatas para se tornarem em Imagens especiais. Por favor note que isto não é a mesma coisa que a imagem do dia.

Para ver o arquivo de nomeações prévias veja: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log

Contents

FormalidadesEdit

NomeaçãoEdit

Se acha que encontrou ou criou uma imagem que possa ser considerada especial, então por favor adicione-a em baixo na secção de nomeações, no topo da página, editando este link.

Mas antes de o fazer, assegure que a imagem tem uma descrição apropriada e licenciamento.

Por favor vote ao usar a palavra na sua linguagem nos modelos em baixo:

Política de candidatura a imagem especialEdit

  • Período de votação de 9 dias. O resultado será determinado no 10º dia após a nomeação.
  • As nomeações feitas por anónimos são bem vindas.
  • As contribuições para a discussão feitas por anónimos são bem vindas.
  • Votos de anónimos não são contados.
  • As nomeações não contam como votos. O voto deve ser feito usando o modelo de voto.

A imagem candidata passará a ser uma imagem especial de acordo com as seguintes condições:

  1. Licença apropriada.
  2. Pelo menos 5 votos positivos.
  3. A relação de votos positivos/votos negativos terá de ser pelo menos 2/1 (uma maioria de dois terços, ou seja pelo menos 67% de apoio).

Para ver instruções sobre como lidar com nomeações antigas, veja Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#What to do after voting is finished.

PropostasEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:CarduelisChlorisBerry.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 20:11:25
 

  •   Info In my opinion, the quality of this image is not on par with our standards today. Plus, we have another featured picture of the same species and same sex, which is better IMO. (Original nomination) --Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree; this image has compression artefacts as well as a fairly low resolution for 2019 standards, and the bird is only a small part of the photo. I don't think this is one of the best images on Commons, and it has been a long time since it was voted such.--Peulle (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per others. This is a clear case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Piri Ries Cairo Map.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 18:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bloemknop van een Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’. 02-08-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 15:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Malvaceae.
  •   Info Flower bud of an Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’ covered with raindrops. A nice double fixed (sterile) hollyhock.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fabulous Seven Pandas (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I might like a bit more room on the bottom and right, depending on what else was there, but the resolution, such that we can see all those little hairs, is amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2013-09-19 14-30-57-collegiale-thann-PA00085696.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 13:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
  •   Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motif, sharp at lower but still high resolution (12.7 megapixels). IMO marginally overexposed, though, as the details at the bottom are slightly too washed-out. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree that the brightness is too high (I appreciate some elements of the stonework have been cleaned and are brighter than others). Lacking embedded colour profile. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Really gorgeous motif. I'll see if ComputerHotline addresses any of the comments above, as I'd like to be able to support this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Prunus avium duracina - flowers - Sasbach.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 06:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Zitronenfalter ♂ Gonepteryx rhamni 4.JPG (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 04:29:39
 

  •   Info Böhringer, sorry but I am nominating your picture for a removal. This is a good picture, however we currently have six featured pictures of male specimens of the species. Yes, this is not valued images, however this one IMO doesn't hold well against the others. I find the background kind of distracting and unlike the others, the butterfly is really small. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Boothsift 04:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I actually like the background --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep - I'm not sure whether I'd support or not if this were a new nomination, but my standard is, if it's not obvious that a picture should be delisted, I vote to keep, and this photo is pretty good at least. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It needs a decent crop to frame it better and to get rid of the distracting background, but otherwise is OK. Charles (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak keep per above. Not the best FP of this species, but not such a clear-cut case that it deserves to be delisted. I agree that a good crop would improve it though, perhaps a vertical crop to keep all of the plant? Cmao20 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain until this nomination is signed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews--Boothsift 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:View to Castle Hill Peak from Red Peak, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 21:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) male underside Italy.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 16:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Pieridae_(Whites_and_Sulphurs)
  •   Info There are quite a few FPs of male brimstones. I think this nomination is better than one, two, three, four, five, six. There would be an argument for delisting some. This one of mine has nice detail, but not such an appealing composition. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Though the eye is not '"out of focus", the focus is more on the wing than on the eye. Not the finest of Commons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Christian Ferrer. Good photo, but not one of the finest I'm afraid. --Boothsift 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm not sure this is better than all of the other ones, but I like the composition and it's good enough for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Christian Ferrer.--Ermell (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per above. Charles, I think your existing FP is considerably better in detail, and I don't see much wrong with the composition of it. I like Kallerna's FP better too. Cmao20 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination OK, I hear you. Thanks for all the contributions. Charles (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:T-centralen metro station december 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Asahi Breweries headquarters building with the Asahi Flame and Skytree at blue hour with full moon, Sumida-ku, Tokyo, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 03:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's like the building is pointing at the moon. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition with the flame pointing at the moon. Pity you didn't blend it to preserve the details on the moon though... -- King of ♠ 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. Do you mean I could have taken two pictures, one darker than the other, so as to recover the highlights? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit per King. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A bizarre architectural ensemble and maybe a bit dystopic to my taste, but an excellent and well-composed document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 11:33:52
 

  • It could also be argued that an upscale is a major digital change, so should've been added with Template:Retouched image before being listed as a candidate, as per FPC guide.
  • As zooming in unnecessarily decreases the overall quality of the image, it is unlikely to meet several points of COM:IG, such as noise, color and editing. This featured version suffers from severe chromatic aberrations and a jagged planet edge which the original does not. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist because upscaling is pointless as it does nothing except adds file size without improvement in the actual detail preserved. That said, before this goes any further, may I suggest a delist-and-replace instead, replacing this one with the original non-upscaled image? The original still meets minimum size requirements and is by far the sharpest and best quality image of Europa on the internet. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose@BevinKacon:@Cmao20:@Daniel Case:Much of the commentary above is inaccurate. In the case of the "original nomination", the image had not been upsampled at that point, and the nomination failed, with one respondent as well as the moderator commenting on the supposedly inadequate size of the image. In the second nomination in Commons, after upsampling, the upscaling was prominently mentioned prior to the voting in the first line of the description, as follows:
"Uploader's notes: the original NASA TIFF image has been modified by increasing linear pixel dimensions by a factor of 1.6 (to bring out fine detail), sharpening and conversion to JPEG format."
Given that, the template would have been largely redundant. Note that the non-upsampled version is now listed separately.
In the case of the Wikipedia vote, there were three votes in favor of the upsampled version (The NMI User, myself, and Bammesk), not just one (the latter voted for both versions), and four votes in favor of the non-upsampled version (again counting Bammesk). The non-upsampled version was promoted to FP short of the required five votes, so due process was not followed in that case. Due process was followed in the Commons vote, with 11 votes in favor and one opposed. What justification can there be to reverse this decision?
As for the supposed "severe" defects in the upsampled version, please demonstrate the difference with screen captures. Regarding the upsampling being "pointless", on the contrary, it was combined with sharpening to make the fine geological detail more easily visible, as I will demonstrate in a subsequent post. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please carefully examine, at full scale, this image: Comparison of mosaics
which contains corresponding sections of the 2 mosaics, if you want to try to understand why I or someone else might have the temerity to upsample and sharpen an image. By way of introduction, the ice-covered surface of Europa is covered with an extraordinary set of fascinating geological features, including the so-called lineae, linear features that form on a variety of scales via a tectonic process. Now, please look at the smallest lineae and other features visible in the images. From my perspective, the ability to see and appreciate the profusion of small lineae is greatly enhanced in the 1.6x upsampled image. These features of course are real, not artifacts. A lot of the lineae that are easily visible from a normal viewing distance at the larger scale are only visible at the smaller scale if you press your nose up to the monitor, and in some cases not even then. Since these geologic features are, from my perspective, and the perspective of others interested in planetary geology, the most interesting aspect of the image, the value gained in making them much more easily visible outweighs any cost incurred in terms of greater chromatic aberration and/or more jagged edges. It is normal for editing processes to have both benefits and costs, and the net result is a benefit in this case in my opinion. Given that the upsampled version got 11 votes and went on to become a POTY finalist while the non-upsampled version only got 6 and was not promoted in Commons, it seems some others agree with me. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep This was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2018, I don't think it would be a great idea to delist this picture. --Boothsift 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others. (And shouldn't the "oppose" votes be "keep", so as not to confuse things?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info WolfmanSF and Boothsift per Ikan's comment, could you please use the 'keep' or 'delist' in this nomination. 'Oppose' or 'support' are for normal FCP noms. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry but I don't buy these arguments. Although due process was technically followed in the commons vote, the nominator did not mention in the nomination that the image was upsampled, and nor did the voters appear to be aware of this. Therefore, I do think the criteria for a delist nomination are satisfied, and that it's appropriate to ask us to think again. WolfmanSF, I understand now why you decided to upsample, but to me this is an argument only for keeping the upsampled version on Commons, not for featuring it instead of the original. Ultimately all the detail is there in the original photo, and upsampling could easily be done client-side if anyone wishes to view the lineae in higher resolution. Therefore my vote remains to delist, and ideally to replace with the original. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Rådhuset metro station in August 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 09:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I was also pretty sure that a similar picture was already FP... clearly   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for mentioning it, it is still one of my favorite photos but unfortunately not sharp.--ArildV (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King and Daniel, excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info A big thank you to ArildV for helping us discover the beauty of Stockholm's metro system that evening and to Rhododendrites for letting me use his tripod for this shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think I recognize the station.--ArildV (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Greenland 467 (35130903436).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 08:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:L'embarquement quai des Orfèvres sur l'île de la Cité, Paris 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 07:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (Flickr) - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks OK, but I'm not seeing the big wow factor here. It looks a bit ordinary, like a photo any tourist could take on any given day.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, it's a good photo and well-composed but I'm afraid it just doesn't wow me very much. I think it was worth a try here though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mo wow and for me too bright --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow.--Vulphere 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow--Boothsift 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:20131013-22. Kokneses pils, rudens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Koknese Castle, a partially-submerged castle complex in Koknese, Latvia, dating from the thirteenth century. created by KarlitoWiki - uploaded by KarlitoWiki - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice find. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: gorgeous colours and nice composition, but too soft --СССР (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per CCCP - also, I would have liked to see more of the reflection in the water for better balance.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, great light and colours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice colors, but there's no shortage of autumn FPs and we don't have to promote one that falls slightly short on technical standards. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is autumn mood, but otherwise not much that would make me say wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very colourful but not much to see.--Ermell (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per A.Savin --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Kaupanger stavkyrkje 2018 take 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info I think the composition of this image is excellent, in terms of how natural framing is used to highlight the subject. created by Bep - uploaded by Bep - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support for the totality of the composition, irrespective of the effect of pixel-peeping at the dark areas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very intimate, you chose the perfect subject for this lighting. -- King of ♠ 01:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The framing makes the church looks like it's blushing from being caught in something it wasn't supposed to do. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:11:38
 

File:Swayambhunath Stupa -Kathmandu Nepal-0336.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@СССР, Famberhorst:   Done Thank you -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition looks disorganized to me, with the corners of the temple on the right being cut off and the stone structures on the bottom not really coming together to direct the viewer's eyes to the golden temple. -- King of ♠ 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't like the crops on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Benmore with surrounding hills, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I quite like the composition and how the clouds fit into it. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Only thing keeping me from strong support is the almost-blown clouds at right, although there may have been nothing you could do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If the sun lights up a white cloud, it should be "Oh my eyes are hurting" bright to look at, and there is no detail anyway. Sadly we don't have HDR JPG yet, but please don't turn them paper-white just to please FPC reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really refreshing. -- King of ♠ 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sublime beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 10:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bonnet Macaque DSC 1125.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 18:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created & uploaded by Shankar Raman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 10 years old picture but still stands out for me. Big wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Shot at the right time -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. (Minor point: I think it's evident the monkey is in fact yawning, so I wouldn't use scare quotes around that word in the file description.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really poor quality. Nothing in focus. Look at the teeth. Charles (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not perfectly crisp, yet not particularly bad either. I wouldn't go as far to say "really poor quality". And it's surely an unusual photo. --A.Savin 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Winter auf der Abtsrodaer Kuppe.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 12:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Volcán de Ollagüe, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 80-88 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 11:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Volcanic landscape featuring from left to right Tomasamil (5,890 m or 19,320 ft), Cañapa (5,882 m or 19,298 ft), Ollagüe (5,868 m or 19,252 ft) and Aucanquilcha (6,176 m or 20,262 ft), Andes, southern Bolvia/northern Chile. c/u/n by me, Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support That's one heck of a panorama. No stitching faults visible, at least not to me, and sharpness is great everywhere. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I suggest 3 things: 1) to remove that piece of rubbish (see the note), 2) remove something what I think was left after a dust spot removal (see another note), 3) add information that is in the notes (about vulcanos) into the description. Some devices like phones might struggle to display the notes so it'd be nice to have that in the description, too. These are minor things that don't stop me from supporting anyway :) --Podzemnik (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Podzemnik: thanks for the notes, all 3 points have been addressed, thank you Poco2 19:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment impressive, but can you please correct the minor stitching error, see note --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Uoaei1: sharp eye! thanks for that note, I fixed it. Poco2 19:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 26-27 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll be home tonight and will check it again with a better and calibrated screen. If there's actually room for improvement regarding the CA, I'll upload a new version latest tomorrow. Poco2 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР:   New version uploaded. I checked though the former version on my usual screen and still cannot share the severity of CA traces here Poco2 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The angle is not as striking as the former POTY finalist, but the resolution is better (I suspect the other image is cropped from a wide-angle shot to minimise distortion at the edges). Overall the composition is sufficiently different for a new FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this could work with some of the clouds cropped off the top (and corresponding crops to the bottom and sides to better center the church), As it is I feel like putting my hand to my forehead to shield my eyes as I view this. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: I've applied a cropped overall but rather than doing it the same way at each side, I did it considering the content Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:North-west facade of the Castle of Chambord 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and I like that it shows the castle from a different angle to usual, but I think too much of the image is in shadow. I'm also not overly sold on the people and I think it would have been better if you could have waited for them to leave. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was lucky that so few tourists were in the picture. This is the Chambord castle, where is always the tourists. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't mind the tourists; I've been one and they're not taking away from the image. However, I think you could crop a little tighter to get rid of some of the distracting elements of the foreground (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Daniel Case.--Vulphere 03:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of the foreground is in shadow. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of Hearts --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Grand'Rue in Colmar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose A lot to recommend it, but I think it would look better in stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Were it not for the cars, this could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the cars are a big negative and likely need to get up early to avoid them but that's what the postcard photographers do. Wrt looking like a painting, yes this doesn't look like a photo. It has been overprocessed, with a very heavy hand on the Lightroom sliders. Compare File:Colmar (31617330537).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cars, the cars, why the cars? --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I think this is a fine composition, including the cars, but Colin's point about processing gives me pause. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Solitär in der Hamburger HafenCity.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 06:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info High-rise appartment building on the corner of Osakaallee and Tokiostraße, HafenCity quarter Hamburg, as seen from Überseeboulevard. The building is an example of the solitary architecture that this part of Hamburg has been criticised for. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Reminds me of this FP of mine. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bold, striking image that works well because of the contrast of red against blue. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20 -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A building with slight vertical distortion is not supposed to work - but somehow it does. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-20-Dingle Lighthouse-0673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 23:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @W.carter: Yes, that is indeed a typo. Why I thought that was German for lighthouse, I have no clue. Thank you for the notice--Boothsift 00:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The German term would be "Leuchtturm" (Lighttower) :-) I fixed the typo to lighthouse --Superbass (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Superbass. In the future, please wait until the nom is finished before renaming a file since it messes with the codes for the nom. I'll keep an eye on this and fix the links if this nom is successful. --Cart (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea this could be a problem. Thanks for the hint and for a correction if necessary. --Superbass (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but do fix the typo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Extremely picturesque and nicely done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very nice view that deserves FP IMHO, but, Superbass, can you please fix the perspective (see on the right the buildings leaning out)? Poco2 10:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a very fine perspective problem at the tiny houses in the background. I have tickled a correction out of Lightroom using guides in zoomed view: Click. Unfortunately this costs pixels at the edges of the photo. I personally prefer the image composition in the candidate photo and find the minimal slant in some of the tiny houses acceptable, what do you think? --Superbass (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Proper perspective correction in photos taken from top to down is extremely difficult to get right and often distorts the photo too much, so usually it is not done. --Cart (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cart. When "looking down" the verticals slope outwards rather than inwards. When we "fix the perspective" are are pretending the camera was pointing straight ahead and with a very wide angle lens -- sometimes the distortions of that virtual-lens are then too negative in their own ways. I can only see the sloping when pixel peeping. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Common tern at Brooklyn Bridge Park (21040).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 20:07:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, Boothsift. Taken while hiding behind a bollard while she did some fishing. (btw I say "she" but AFAIK they are sexually monomorphic, so I'm not sure). — Rhododendrites talk |  22:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support "For everything, tern, tern, tern, there is a season ..." Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice photo, but aren't FPs of birds this size usually sharper? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Per Ikan, a nice one, but not outstanding in comparison to others. I also prefer seing wild life pictures in a wild life environment Poco2 10:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. --Hockei (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems reasonably sharp to me. A bit noisy in the darker areas, but I prefer noise to unsharpness from too much NR. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Common bird. Concrete perch not good. No definition to feathers at all. Nowhere near FP quality in composition or technical standard. I'm amazed at the positive votes. Charles (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Weird halo around the bird's head. Concrete is also not great. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm OK with an urban bird being perched on concrete, but I think a bird this size should be sharper for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Microcentrum retinerve Mex2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 13:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice wings (or should we say leaves?), but not the head out of focus. The framing is also not optimal in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Basile, not bad though and an interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes wings are good, but head is not in focus and the framing is odd. Charles (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per above. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project (454045).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ETH Zürich im Abendlicht.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Weak oppose Sorry but the more I think about this one, it's not at the level of an FP night shot for me. The composition is not especially appealing, although I'm sure the image is very valuable and useful. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cmao; without metadata I can't be sure if this was the best possible shot, i.e. it looks like it might have been a long exposure but I can't tell for sure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao--Boothsift 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The dark trees of the foreground make the composition cluttered. The quality is not exceptional, with these buildings at the distance lacking sharpness. Blown highlights through the windows of the main building are not really successful, it would have been more interesting to make the interior visible, with HDR for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I generally agree with Basile's points. I also am not so impressed with the quality and amount of noise, compared to some other blue hour photos we've featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Louisa May Alcott, c. 1870 - Warren's Portraits, Boston.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 19:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People/Portrait#Women

File:Die Schöllenen Schlucht mit Teufelsbrücke im schweizerischen Kanton Uri.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Indeed, the stitching errors are still visible, as CCCP points out. Have added notes to show the worst-affected areas. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that errors are fixed. It's a shame that we've still got that sudden transition between the sharp and the unsharp area, but that's something you only see if you pixel peep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Composition does not work for me. I'd need more sky, maybe more to the right or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: the errors are still present; would gladly support otherwise. --СССР (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile and СССР.--Ermell (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree the composition isn't working. Just a bit jumbled. And there are still large stitching errors and it looks like some of your frames are blurry, which isn't fixable unless you have more frames to choose. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I see the image has been changed considerably, including the composition. Wolfgang Moroder, you should really ping those who have voted already after making such big changes -- this is no longer the same photo. Unfortunately the problems with stitching remain and aren't minor. The biggest remaining problem is angles and verticles. Look at the nearest bridge right-hand-side. Compare File:Teufelsbrücke (Devil's Bridge) high in the Swiss Alps.JPG. The upper line of bricks should fall at an angle (the edge is not vertical) but is a straight line, whereas in this photo is is seriously bowed and changes direction. The lower two sections of bricks should have a vertical edge, but here slope considerably. Compare also the right hand side of the photo with the railings and little tunnel -- the vertical walls and rails aren't vertical. There are quite a lot of blurry areas which mostly are hard to spot if I downsize 50% to 24MP, but aren't so much a reason to oppose than to wonder why upload at full res if the quality isn't there. In my experience a hand-held panorama is possible to FP level, but a big gamble and I take many extra frames to try to ensure success. Here I don't think the gamble succeeded, and a wide-angle lens would have created a more reliably accurate picture. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The perfect photo does not exist. Who cares for the vertical lines, angles and rails if you almost don't notice them. This is not an architectural photo where perfect vertical lines are requested. But, if you don't like the water, the bridges and the rocks, the misty sky and the overall atmosphere of this photo as I and some others do, just feel free to oppose, no problem. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that the perfect architectural standards should not necessarily apply to a landscape photo. And the composition has improved with the edit. I just don't think it is among our finest, with these flaws: we are not short of landscape FPs. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Colin:, @Peulle:, @Boothsift:, @Daniel Case: Thanks for the comments and support. I uploaded a new version without (I hope) stitching errors and different crop. Please feel free to revise your support. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are still significant errors in this third version, at the top right corner, three long black oblique lines. I did not inspect the whole image deeply because it's quite a thankless job to look for such technical flaws with so large images, but I think at least these obvious mistakes should be fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Power lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Not an error, those are overhead power lines.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - You fixed the compositional problem very effectively, in a different way than I thought of. Kudos! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least one of the stitched frames is unsharp, and some minor stitching error, see notes --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Ansberg in Franconian Switzerland southward. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be interesting to see the frame divided exactly into 3 parts of the same hight (trees, mountains, sky) but this is still working for me. Simple, pretty, nice colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Idyllic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but remove the big dust spot and the minor spots in the sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nevertheless--Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Pretty, but the composition doesn't work for me. The hills would, but the trees kind of just sit there and interfere, so it seems like two separate ideas in two layers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Ikan. We often use foreground to lead into the distance, but here they seem to form a barrier. I tried a crop like Podzemnik considered (e.g. 16:9 excluding bottom) which makes the trees a layer of fire at the bottom, but still unconvinced. We have so many layered mountain views at FP, this one isn't quite working. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reverse leading to infinity. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. The idea is good, but I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is not the most effective way to convey it. You can either go wide (at least 8:5) to emphasize the horizontal lines, or make it a vertical composition to emphasize the different layers (on this particular image that might not work so well as there are not enough layers to do that, but I'm saying in general for these types of compositions). -- King of ♠ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, and no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Opinel N°10 Carbon w bread on wood.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 22:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info French Opinel pocket/folding knife with bread; showing the typical stains of a carbon steel blade – created by Chianti - uploaded by Chianti - nominated by Chianti -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting subject, but the strong reflection on the blade is distracting, and the composition with the bread is not very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for your opinion. A technically perfect photo of these objects without blade reflection exists with File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg, but it lacks wow. The light-shadow distribution here is deliberately chosen to highlight the blade, the correct word is therefore not "distracting" but attracting the eye of the viewer. It is intended to be as "distracting" as the sheets in this image. In fact, this photo thoroughfully composed with larger dark parts in the top left and lighter parts in bottom right, with the smaller lighter spot on the bread crust bottom left and the darker spot top right for balance. The locking mechanism of the knive was placed in the middle of the diagonal of the latter two – a diagonal that puts the highlighted blade on the overall darker side of said diagonale and the darker part of the knive (the handle) in the overall lighter "half" of the picture. Even the shape of the bread was intentional to "reverse repeat" the blade point and curve. I hope this helped you to understand the idea of the image and why I chose it from many others of a series; also this was a short introduction to basic and classic principles of composition of Natures Mortes. There's some more like a dark "L" contrasting with a lighter "L" (as I would call it), feel free to ask if you want to know more. To make it more easy for you I made an annotated image here referring to my comments, which also may help you in the future when it comes to judging photos regarding composition. Regards, Chianti (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You would have much better chance with exposure like File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg. I suggest you try again with a clean table, and different compositions with the bread. Personally I would like to see the whole bread. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose According to Opinel's website this is an outdoor knife, suitable "to work difficult materials, trim branches". It would seem more appropriate, for cutting bread indoors, to use their bread knife which has serrations. While I appreciate your explanation of the care taken over the composition of the photo, ultimately the opinion of whether the photo works is in the eye of the beholder, and if Yann finds the reflection distracting, then you can't just argue that away. For non-obvious photographs, it is better to explain your work up-front than have to potentially defend it after being opposed/misunderstood. Still, one can't please everyone. I think the long thin aspect-ratio of the framing is peculiar and not ideal, both in terms of composition but also utility. It seems more the photo has been cropped around a knife-shaped rectangle rather than the objects arranged within a more conventional frame. The perpendicular arrangement of the blade to the viewer is not dynamic. The knife is resting propped against the bread as though someone where taking a photograph of it, rather than its normal resting position of flat-side-up. The overall effect is a bit contrived.
The photo of the person cutting bread on Opinel's breadknife webpage is imo a better image of what is after all a tool that is designed to be used. If one is determined to make a still-life involving bread and a knife, then some more elements would help, such as additional slices, and perhaps the food that is to be placed on top. We do tend to prefer some educational utility for the image, rather than still-life art for its own sake (though it has a place). So you'd get more support if it was more clearly educational. For example, food photography of delicious bread and toppings making me hungry for it, or hand-tool photography showing the proper knife being actively used to cut bread. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have several of these myself, I carry at least one with me all the time, and I use them indoor and outdoor. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the composition, it works well for me, and I appreciate the skill involved. For a more clear FP, however, I'd prefer to see a shot that's a little bit more dynamic - for example, as Colin suggests, a photo showing the knife being used to cut bread. This is a good still-life and overall I think deserves a feature, but it's not the kind of images that grabs you straight away. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I was going to support, as this is way better than the other photo in terms of color and contrast, i.e. it makes you want to have a slice of the bread, until I read Colin's oppose, and I just can't unthink it, so to speak. The more you look at it after reading, the more you'd want to see a serrated knife in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Colin--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Sumba sheeps 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sure they're not sheeps off the old block?  Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Would make a great "Hello from the Farøe Islands!" postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Never been to the Farøe Islands, would like to some day--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view of a place I indeed don't know, but the technical level is not FP, there is a very clear drop of quality on the right side. Furthermore, it needs a perspective correction (look at the houses on the right leaning out) Poco2 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not architecture photography. Normal top-down view, and the horizon is correct -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Chalet du Mont-Royal panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 05:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
  •   Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no wow. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good picture that illustrates its subject well, but I agree with Colin, it's not a massively imposing or impressive building, and although the sky is blue, it's quite dull and featureless. Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very wowing--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)