Open main menu

Commons:Candidate pentru imagini excelente

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 | +/−

Dacă consideri că există o fotografie pe Commons suficient de atractivă ca să se afle pe pagina Commons:Imagini excelente, atunci te rugăm include-o în lista de candidate editând această pagină. Dacă există un consens general după 15 zile, imaginea va fi transferată la Commons:Imagini excelente.

Contents

PropuneriEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Under stars and snows.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 01:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Daubeny's water-lily at BBG (43428).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:36:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Citrus flower 2019-06-13 09-54-06 (C)-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:VST image of the spectacular star-forming region Messier 17 (Omega Nebula).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 17:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by ESO/INAF-VST/OmegaCAM - OmegaCen/Astro-WISE/Kapteyn Institute, uploaded by Stas1995, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary. Worth viewing in full size. Cmao20 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Panthera tigris, 2017 (cropped).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 16:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created by Amoghavarsha, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is one of the best image of a tiger we have. The background is noisy, but the tiger is sharp enough. -- Yann (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise IMO, and the resolution could have been better too.--Peulle (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: It is the maximum resolution of the camera, then cropped. Do you that noise could be reduce with careful editing? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We have lots of good images of tigers in the category. For example, File:Berlin Tierpark Friedrichsfelde 12-2015 img23 Siberian tiger.jpg, File:Tiger Davidraju 3.jpg and File:Panthera tigris tigris Tidoba 20150306.jpg. This one has rather a lot of ploughed/exposed soil and a distracting lump on the RHS. The tiger itself is fine. The image is extracted from a 24MP version though 12MP is still respectable for wildlife. There's no details about whether this is wild or captive or where it was taken. The high 1,600 ISO is necessary to get 1/500s and f/4 is likely the fastest for this 300mm lens, so I can understand there will be some noise when pixel peeping. Re Yann: the noise is better removed by the photographer before sharpening (especially by masking out the background so it isn't sharpened to enhance noise). It will not be as successful to fix the jpg. -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The images Colin mentions are better quality, as are some of the existing FPs such as this unusual fellow. Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • But we should not be comparing this image of a Bengal tiger with the 'white tiger' or the Siberian tiger mentioned above. Charles (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, a white tiger is a type of Bengal tiger, simply a variant caused by a lack of a particular pigment. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between most of the tiger subspecies, but it's worth noting that the Bengal tiger is significantly more common than the Siberian tiger (although, of course, both are endangered). If we have an excellent-quality shot of the Siberian tiger such as A. Savin has provided us with, then IMO we should be able to do at least as well for the Bengal tiger. The only subspecies for which I'd drop the quality requirements would be one of the really rare ones like the South China tiger, since that would be a more unique shot; but even then, there are several individuals in captivity. So, on the whole, I think we should wait until a better photo of this kind comes along rather than just promoting the best one we already have. Cmao20 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others, especially Colin --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bandits Roost, 59 and a half Mulberry Street.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 15:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cleopatra (Gonepteryx cleopatra italica) male underside Italy.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:African Leopard Near Otavi Waterhole Etosha Namibia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info African leopard awaking from nap. Leopard collection lacks sharp images with face detail. Upload etc. by Axeltschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support There are four FPs of the African leopard on Commons: this, which I wouldn't have voted for as the colour balance seems unnatural and the contrast is too high, this quite different action-shot by Poco, this which is a great photo but a rather unfortunate specimen, and this which is a clear FP but isn't sharp on the face. Therefore I think this photo fills a niche we don't have, per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Agree cmao. I'd delist the one with the off colour balance. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Friesach Dominikanerkirche Johannesaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 05:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Playing in the Nuba mountains.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 00:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ground in the left background appears to have a tilt, but the right foreground looks level, I so I think that the photo doesn't need a tilt correction, but others are welcome to comment regarding this point. --Pine (✉) 01:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Good to have something like that on commons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I asked the uploader if he could upload the photo in its full size. But for me it's already FP - kind of an image where you don't pixel peep. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A unique capture. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • S for   Support and "Superb"! -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Clearly tilted in ccw direction Poco2 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral too much in shadow. I don't see what's so special about this photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really do want to know what's going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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)
  •   Delist Indeed this is definitely not FP, the quality and detail are poor. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Clearly not an FP anymore. Good find -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Charles (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist .--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 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.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by Piri Ries - uploaded by MichelBakni - nominated by MichelBakni -- MichelBakni (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Supportباسم (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... no, I'm not too wowed. The resolution is not very high and I'm not impressed by the level of detail (although I'm not sure how much of that is from the actual drawing).   Oppose --Peulle (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but, interesting as this is, it doesn't match up to some recent digitisations in terms of image quality and amount of detail preserved. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It‘s actually Piri Reis. —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shortcomings evident even at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice picture and great quality, but the red dots in the left upper corner are disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 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)
  •   Neutral, per above comments. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Really a gorgeous motif, the composition is OK, but details should be sharper: the image is not as crisp as this motif deserves. Looks like the lens did not resolve details fine enough to take full advantage of the resolution of the sensor. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Aristeas please note this is a 64MP stitched panorama, composed of many frames taken by the camera. ComputerHotline has chosen not to downsize the result, whereas some others do. There is an impressive amount of detail captured here, even if the result looks a bit soft if you pixel-peep. The lens/sensor resolving concern should really be reserved for equipment reviews IMO. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping the increasing resolution of sensors perversely means we are less satisfied with the results at 100% even though the actual overall image is better and more detailed. This image contains more detail than any normal 24MP camera could capture in a single frame even with a great lens. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      You are right, so I delete my vote. Sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 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: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)

  • I will renominate as I have got the species wrong. Charles (talk) 07:09, 20 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)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:34, 20 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)
  •   Keep per others.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 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)
  •   Support Glad to see this worked out. I don't think I have any prospective third FPCs from that outing, but it was great to see these places and I'm looking forward to going through through the shots from the rest of the trip. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:37, 21 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)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:55, 20 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)
  •   Support - good click from such a narrow place.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:30, 20 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)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 12:59, 20 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 --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:02, 20 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)
  •   Weak oppose it's good, but existing FP-s with same subject are much better. --Ivar (talk) 13:00, 20 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)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support rare picture, indeed. Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:16, 20 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)
  •   Question @Rhododendrites: As I currently do not have access to photo editing tools, are you able to address some of the issues? Thank you--Boothsift 00:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There's not much from the above criticisms that I can fix. Only the halo that KoH mentioned, I think, and I don't think that would be enough to change anyone's mind, really. I appreciate the nomination, but it just doesn't seem like this one's going to fly, so to speak. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  18:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Per Rhododendrites, thank everyone for the reviews--Boothsift 22:23, 20 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: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)
  •   Weak oppose blurry frame(s) spoils it. --Ivar (talk) 13:03, 20 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 is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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)