Commons:Candidates a imáxenes destacaes

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

Si creyes qu'hai dalguna semeya o imaxe na andecha abondo guapa como pa tar ente les imáxenes destacaes, entós pues amestala na llista de candidatures editando nesti enllaz. Si hay consensu xeneral depués de 10 díes, la imaxe tresferiráse a imáxenes destacaes.

PropuestesEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM DSLR lens—renominationEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 19:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
  •   Info This is a renomination. I wasn't completely happy with the images, so I also did a reshoot with better defined lighting, less room stray light and placed reflections on the object better.
    all by me – Lucas 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucas 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Each photo has very good quality. However, each picture is devoid of emotion. This like a very accurate technical drawing. For me not enough emotion of the Author of these paintings. It turns out boring, although done a large job :( -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@George Chernilevsky: I can understand your feelings, but if you look at Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Optical_devices, there are a lot of such emotionless images of objects, each have in common that they have great lighting and reveal a lot of detail. There even is a set of my studio photos, of the Canon 100 mm lens, in that category present. There are other examples, like the shells by Llez – Lucas 20:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Laetiporus sulphureus 2017 G01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The harsh flash lighting from above with the shadow is the biggest detriment for me – Lucas 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Interesting to look at and well-composed. The lighting is OK, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm just not a fan of the lighting... The foreground is harsh and the background has a very vivid shadow that to me makes it feel like it was taken with a pop up flash... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 20:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Babylonia spirata 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cloudy TrolltindeneEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:15:40 (UTC)

  •   Info Trolltindene mountains revealing from the clouds in Romsdalen, Norway. Trollveggen is the highest vertical cliff in Europe. Created, uploaded, nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ximonic (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 E-papieros mod 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 13:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm in favor of turning it to be vertical so the display can be easily read. Which would also require removing the drop shadows and creating a mask for a pure white background. I can do it, but I'll give Jacek Halicki a chance to do it himself. – Lucas 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Lucas: I think it's a bad idea. Vertical photo will look unnatural due to the line of the fluid level in an atomiser. Besides in Wikipedia look better horizontal photos. As for the background is I do not like pictures of the cleared background, IMO look unnatural, in practice such a background does not exist. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:San Stanislao dei Polacchi (Rome) - Ceiling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:54:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Flehmendes Pferd 32 c.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Umschreibung by Olafur Eliasson, Munich, December 2016 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ARD-Hauptstadtstudio, Berlin-Mitte, Fassade, 170117, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Facade of ARD-Hauptstadtstudio in Berlin-Mitte. ARD-Hauptstadtstudio is a television studio in Berlin operated jointly by the members of the federal broadcasting network ARD. All by me -- Code (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm bothered by the slight curvature of the lines. Otherwise great shot. – Lucas 17:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: Really? That's interesting. I thought on the contrary that the curvature was compositionally lifting the picture above FP treshold. --Code (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code: I see what you mean, but IMO unless the actual building is curved, the image should either have drastically curved lines for effect or have perfectly straight lines. I'll see what others say about it. – Lucas 18:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: Ehm... the buliding actually is curved. --Code (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code: thanks, I wasn't aware of that. – Lucas 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm a big fan of repeating patterns and simplicity and you have a great eye for both. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above discussion, the curved lines are there for a reason. – Lucas 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Pfarrkirche Going, 160623, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Interior of the roman-catholic parish church in Going am Wilden Kaiser (Tyrol, Austria). All by me -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is one of two beautiful interiors of parish churches you recently nominated to QIC. The near corners are unsharp, so you might consider a crop if it doesn't damage the composition, but otherwise, it's great. (Aside: I really like the fresco in the dome; do you have another picture that includes the whole thing and/or do you know who painted it?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Thank you. I've made a 360° panorama of the church which offers a full view of the paintings. Unfortunately I don't know much about the church. I tried to find some information about it in the Internet but there doesn't seem to be a lot. In the church itself there wasn't any more information to find as well. Regarding the crop: I really like the view this way and I don't think that the corner unsharpness is really disturbing so I'd prefer to keep the picture as it is. I still could downsample it a little bit to increase the sharpness but that would reduce the level of detail. --Code (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, don't downsample. I don't love the unsharp corners, but they don't come close to ruining the photo, so if cropping would cause more harm than good, leave well enough alone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And thanks for the link. How do you like the scene in the fresco with all the serpents falling out of the sky? That's not a common subject for a fresco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I found it very strange indeed and I don't really know what it stands for (which is a shame as I'm catholic myself and probably should know it). The interior of the church is for some reasons interesting: The church is named after the holy cross but you find a lot of different saints in there, the man on the right side is probably Saint Lawrence on the left side you can see Saint Sebastian. At the left side of the high altar you can see Saint George with the dragon. I dont' really know why they all appear there. And who's the guy with the arrows at the right side of the altar? Anyways: It would be nice to know much more about the church. Maybe an Austrian Wikimedian could try to gather some more information? --Code (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 09:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent photo and sharp from left to right. Wrt Ikan's comment, the only bit "unsharp" are the corners of the nearby pews, which are out-of-focus. That's to be expected and in no way harms the composition and square framing. I'm really not sure why one would expect or need them to be in in focus. Are we going to start focus stacking church interiors now too? Please, let's accept reality a little. Having some parts out-of-focus is an indication they are not important and the eye is led elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Colin, I fully agree regarding the out-of-focus-parts. The problem doesn't appear in all church interiors, it depends on how small the church is. The smaller it is, the harder it will be to get everything in focus when the single exposures are done with 50mm focal length. I already thought about trying the 85mm lens for such pictures but I think this will only work in really large cathedrals (if it works at all). Maybe I should rather use the 35mm lens for smaller churches but then we won't get the level of detail we have with the 50mm lens. Maybe Diliff, DXR or Benh can share their opinions on that? I remember that DXR did some of his excellent stitched interiors with a 35mm lens as well, but maybe I'm wrong with that. The idea of doing focus stacking in churches is funny. I'm already doing between 75 and 140 single exposures for such a picture. With focus stacking how much would we have? --Code (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I supported the picture; I simply gave a reaction that I don't love the out-of-focus places in the foreground. And what I'm reacting to is the fact that the closest areas are not out of focus to the naked eye. My reaction is based on that reality, not the reality of photographic lens construction and behavior. Sometimes, it's good to deal with the limitations of lens capabilities by cropping out the areas of the foreground that are unsharp; maybe this time, it's best to leave them in the picture, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with my mentioning them, just because the limitations of lens technology will cause a degree of unsharpness to occur in the near corners. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It isn't about "the limitations of lens capabilities" but about reality. Close one eye. Stick your finger up at arms length. Focus on something distant. Your finger is out-of-focus. That's reality. If we artificially extend the range of focus then, as Benh notes, it ends up being "computer generated imagery". For a still image that does not change as you move around it, one must accept that some parts are in focus and some parts not. -- Colin (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to criticize you, Ikan Kekek, sorry. It's perfectly ok for me that you mention the unsharpness of the nearest parts. I just wanted to explain the technical limitations. --Code (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment First, I once again agree with User:Colin. This is not computer generated imagery, and not everything can be in focus. Second, who gives a shit about the OOF benches? There are plenty of other benches which are in focus and help mentally extrapolate. And to Code, I've yet to figure out the relationship between all the variables (focal length, relative aperture, absolute aperture and DOF) so right now I've no opinion on the matter, but this is a really interesting question. I'll get back to you if I figure it out. For now all I can say is that one must use hyperfocal distance focusing to get the most DOF out of such scene, but I'm pretty sure you do that already. - Benh (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Met rijp bedekt eikenblad (Quercus) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The Love of Paris and Helen by Jacques-Louis David.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 10:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Has frame; so {{Art photo}} if needed. Jee 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  DoneVilly Fink Isaksen, and thanks Jee --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry fill in the data in Template:Artwork. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Villy Fink Isaksen, hope OK, now. Jee 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
THX --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 09:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info Swiss made needle file set. All by Lucas.
  •   SupportLucas 09:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - More great work! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I know this is just a b&w image, but can you restore the EXIF information and colour profile please. Perhaps a stage in your stacking workflow is removing the EXIF data. It is possible to copy EXIF from one file (tiff, jpg, etc) to another using EXIFTOOL. Btw, if these are thin files, why is focus stacking necessary? And how would a 20mm increment help -- surely they are less than 20mm thick? Also, information about stacking and stitching is best put on the file description page, and there are templates to help with this. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Colin:   Done 1. I restored the EXIF as you wished. Which is a bit important as this image is not grayscale, it does contain color. 2. Focus stacking was necessary because at f/8, the best aperture of my lens, the DOF wasn't large enough. The 20 mm increments are from left to right in the image, not in depth, I moved the camera along the files to get more resolution. I added that info to the description texts.– Lucas 13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bombus soroeensis - Jasione montana - Tallinn.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 18:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
  •   Info Broken-belted bumblebee on the sheep's bit scabious. All by Ivar (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Bee looks good and sharp as does a good part of the flower. I like the other little bug under the flower. lNeverCry 01:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose This image feels a bit too normal to me. I have some of such images in my own collection, not with pollen but they look very similar. Going through the FP category, there are some images with bigger, more visible pollen than this one, and in terms of visual impact / lighting this one is a bit boring and flat, IMO it doesn't stack up with the majority of the other FPs of bees. – Lucas 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Stausee, Anleger -- 2016 -- 2859.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 16:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in a partially frozen river Ljubljanica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 15:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sandvikens AIK vs Västerås SK 2015-03-14 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 10:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info Sandviken player Niklas Gälman defense against Hammarby players in the Swedish bandy championship final game of 2015. I like this image since it shows the beauty of Bandy. Bandy is all about speed and movement. Unlike (ice) hockey bandy is non-contact sport and played on a rectangle of ice at the same size as a football field (allowing the players to build up very high speed before receiving a pass, making it difficult to defenders). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The focus is on the guy with his back to us, rather than on the ball or on the player facing us who is about to hit the ball. So my eye keeps getting drawn to someone's back. Other than that, it's not a bad scene. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 01:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perhaps being from North America, I am more used to hockey photography in the sports section, and thus I'm not taken aback (ahem) by seeing the backside of a single goalie in the foreground in a picture of men in uniforms playing a puck on ice with sticks. And this group has a nice symmetry to it.

    I would, however, consider the picture improved if some of the crowd at the top were cropped out to better emphasize that symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I see nothing featurable in this photograph, sorry. Going through the relevant FP category, this image does not look like it belongs there. If this photo depicts a unique playing situation or something like that, then it would be a bit different. For example, you describe that Bandy is a fast sport, but the image doesn't show that very well. The dull lighting, the composition that includes too much background for my taste and IMO bad choice for focus on his back is working against it as well. – Lucas 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Mohsen Makhmalbaf at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre 2011.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 02:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castillo de Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-04, DD 41-46 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 19:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info View of the Castle of Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, Spain. The castle was built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop and stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory. The castle was never conquered and was successfully defended against the King of Castile in the 13th century. The successful completion of the Reconquista at the end of the 15th century ended its military significance. Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent image size, DoF and quality, hight EV, nice composition. --The Photographer 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • only   week support <spam> because the resolution can be a bit higher ha, ha, ha ...  ;-)</spam> --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - LOL, Alchemist! I don't think you'll get any complaints about the sky or unsharpness with this one. It's just a pleasure to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment stunning image, but the bushes on the bottom right of the image are significantly more blurred than the ones on the lower left. Are they out of the DOF? I made a note in the image. --Lucasbosch 22:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the source pictures probably suffers from shaking blur (the seam can be seen). - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ---Pudelek (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing view - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose as per discussion above, one or more of the source files are more blurred than the others, and the seamline between sharp and blurred images is visible. See image notes for an example of a blurred spot. I'm jealous of your 5DS R though. --Lucasbosch 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is that big of an issue on such a large picture though and probably that most wouldn't see even on a moderate large print. The blurred area doesn't cover parts of much interest. - Benh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And depending on what kind of shots you do, you really needn't be jealous of the 5DS. As it's been discussed, If you are a macro, or still object guy, it won't bring you any much advantage over any other FF or APS-C given sensor of same generation. - Benh (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Benh: 1. I would love to support this image, but the different levels of sharpness and visible seamline because of it are bothering me. Would this image be of less resolution then it might no be visible even at 100%, but given the resolution, these shortfalls are visible. 2. I haven't followed these discussions. I'd love to have more resolution available for my studio shots, just for the sake of seeing more details, so I'm jealous. --Lucasbosch 12:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, I agree a high-resolution sensor has an advantage for single-shot photos such as your studio. We try to avoid penalising photographers for uploading full-resolution photos or huge stitches like this. Try the 50% downsize I link below. That's still 28MP and very sharp. If you'd support that then there is no reason to not support this. Opposing over 100%-size pixel peeping of a >100MP image just encourages folk to downsize prior to upload, and then we lose detail that can never be retrieved. As I'm fond of saying, if your monitor is a standard 100DPI, then this image is over 4 metres wide, and you'd probably view it from a couple of metres distance at least, rather than normal monitor distance. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Thanks for your thorough explanation, I strike my oppose. I would welcome allowing/encouraging photographers to upload downsampled images instead of full sized ones like this, to hide flaws better and avoid pixel peepers like me. In fact I would have downsampled this in secret if I were in the same situation, as the resolution is plenty even downsampled. But I understand that having sharp parts of the image is considered more desirable for the Commons project than having less pixels but with the whole frame being perfect. --Lucasbosch 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, if the software can downsize on-the-fly then why downsize on upload? Actually, for huge stitches most photographers already downsize a bit to ensure the detail is sharp, which it is for most of this image. I don't see the point in uploading full size if it is soft/blurry all over, and for big stitches there is no value in making people download a big file that is not sharp. When we get folk uploading 6MP landscapes that pass FP, it isn't really fair to to penalise others who don't downsize. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: You say yourself that some people already downsize so others don't have do download a panorma that isn't sharp corner to corner. I don't think this image is any different, albeit being much more resolution. My opinion is that such a panorama should have equal sharpness over the full frame, and not rely on downsampling to achieve this. If there is a soft part, downsample until everything is constistent and thus the seamlines become invisible. I find a 100MP image which is soft on some spots and sharp on others kind of more wonky than a pristine 6MP image. I see your point, too, that you throw away detail on parts of the image in the process. So I wouldn't want to penalize him for not downscaling, but the different levels of sharpness which reveal seamlines, and I don't want to see seamlines. I believe in a pixel perfect uploaded file not reliant on downsampling to achieve even sharpness. Even if this requires downsamling before upload. Agree to disagree ;) --Lucasbosch 14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you don't want to see the seamlines, and I wish the stitching was better. But you have a choice to examine the image at this level of detail. Nobody forces you to download the full size image and then display it on your screen at 100% while examining it closely. A good review test might be to judge the whole image fullscreen on your monitor, and then to examine for flaws at some intermediate resolution. If you'd support this at 12MP, say, or 24MP, say, then any extra resolution is simply a bonus. I think that unless the image was huge and very soft/noisy all over, then I'd be reluctant to complain about the size being too large. We have a culture here of pixel peeping that harms people's generosity in uploading/creating high-resolution images (vs Flickr where many images don't even fill one's screen). The result is some photographers really do upload 6MP landscapes from their 36Mp cameras and get and expect to get FP. Of course, minor errors only visible at 100% on a large image may be worth pointing out to see if they can be fixed. If you have a high DPI screen, then much of this pixel peeping concern simply disappears. Our standard 100DPI monitors are the equivalent of taking a magnifying glass to a print. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support That bottom right is an issue, but given where it is and the image resolution, I think it can get away with it. -- KTC (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There is a flawed frame and perhaps the stitching could be improved (IIRC you just use Lightroom - have you tried PtGui with SmartBlend as the blend tool?). But the resolution of 111MP makes this visible at 100%. A reduction (see this link to a 28MP 50% downsize) hides such sharpness problems and the whole image is very sharp indeed. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploaded a new version where I cropped the right side a bit to get rid of the area that somehow wasn't as sharp as others. If the result is not satisfying I can offer also this other version with a far wider view. Thank you Benh and Colin for making understandable that images with more resolution are not always comparable with lower ones and users of a camera like 5DS shouldn't be punished for that. It is indeed not as easy as it was with the 5D Mark II to get all images sharp. Poco2 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Colin did most of the lobbying :) And, pardon me if you already knew, but If your pipeline gives you access to the seam mask, it's very easy to edit it and soften the transition from sharp to blurred area. This would give a better result I think, but this take for granted the "common" area between the source pictures is large enough. - Benh (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The new crop doesn't just chop off a bit on the right, but introduces some to the left. I like the road on the left, but this is a different enough picture that I think you should ping all who have voted so far. It isn't like you just removed a dust spot. As for the other one you link, it is far too wide and also has quality issues. There is still an issue with a seam (to the right of the rocks) that could be handled better if, like Benh says, you took control over the join there (or used Smartblend, which I find is often better are placing seams and not crearting blurred seams). -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Photographer, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts: @Johann Jaritz, Tomascastelazo, INeverCry, Martin Falbisoner: @Code, Cayambe, Michielverbeek, Gnosis, Pudelek: @Lucasbosch, KTC, Colin: Dear all and sorry for the disturbance, I just wanted to let you know that I've cropped the image (mainly on the right) to get rid of the blurred are. I'm informing you just in the case that this change would affect your already emitted vote. Poco2 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Poco, I like the second crop the most. Now the main subject is no longer centered, and this is a bit weird IMO (but this still has my support). I don't garantee anything, but just in case, I offer assistance to implement the above mentioned solution. - Benh (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer Benh. Will look into it this weekend and probably come back to you then. Poco2 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the crop from the time of original nomination. There's still a visible seam in the new crop, which wouldn't go away unless the you crop much closer to the rock. While now the rock the castle is sitting on is actually centered, the castle itself is now a bit off to much to the side to me. Then again, if the new crop was the only version offered, I would still had supported so I'm certainly not going to object now. -- KTC (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please go back to v2 and ignore the naysayers. It was The Perfect Composition. KennyOMG (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that this one is "better", however, both are perfect to me, IMHO --The Photographer 11:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Антена пелистер 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Two dust spots below the cloud that's at the upper right corner must be removed before this photo could be featured. Chances are, there could be others, so the photo should be edited with a fine-toothed comb. However, once that's completed, I will vote to support. The motif is interesting, but what really makes the composition for me is the complementary snowy-looking cloud pattern. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I will remove the dust spots, but could you please mark the areas on the image? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done The dust spots have been removed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the composition with the large white areas and the antenna being so small in the frame doesn't work for me. I feel like much more would have been possible when having been there. – Lucas 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is a snowscape photo that includes some man-made structures, not a photo that zooms in on those structures like a laser beam. The antenna is small in the frame because it and the other snowy structures are part of the snowscape, which extends to the clouds in the sky, as they look like streaks of snow, too. I find it totally appropriate for the man-made structures to be part of the picture without dominating it, and other details like the footprint track to the center left of the picture help, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good, but may be better with f/8 instead of f/14 (improvment of sharpness). --XRay talk 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Works because of the sky, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Matka 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Basotxerri: and @Martin Falbisoner: take another look please. --The Photographer 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Thank you, The Photographer, that was very kind of you to fix the image. However, it still doesn't convince me to support it as FP but I'm willing to abstain. Perhaps others will support it now. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Despite The Photographer's work to improve it there is still a little bit more noise than I'd like. The area on the boat behind the man looks blown as well, something you wouldn't expect in this kind of light. And, frankly, the composition has too many clashing elements for it to work for me even if it were technically perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Composition should be better (more space around, boat at 1:2), filename should be improved --XRay talk 06:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - the CAs are too bad --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is a botched cloning stamp job right in the center. Follow the road in the background of the cliff and the two intermingle, the cliff in the foreground dissolves... --Lucasbosch 15:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks for pointing this out. There's a lot of support for this picture. Do you guys think the nomination should be withdrawn? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Serious technical problems. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but not excellent . Too many problems for an excellent vote. Je-str (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose until the technical problems are fixed. Huge wow factor though. -- King of ♠ 00:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King and Ivar. The CA alone is so egregious that I didn't even bother to look at the noted cloning problems. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Under the circumstances, I'd like to withdraw the nomination, but I have a question for everyone: If I withdraw and then Chensiyuan fixes the problems within a couple of days, can the nomination be reopened, since the deadline for voting is January 27? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I would advise you just use the "I withdraw my nomination" tag (search other nomiantions for an example code snippet) which closes the voting and renominate the image (see the rules), which is a cleaner process than making all the users above reevaluate their votes. – Lucas 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  Withdrawn. I think Chensiyuan is offline. If the problems with the photo that are noted above are eventually corrected, it could be nominated at a later date. For now, there are other photos I could nominate. Thanks for your votes and your eyes, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Osnabrück - Piesberg - Feldbahn 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I really like the peaceful natural scene, the light and the birds. The mood is somewhat spoiled by the plane and its contrail, and that's the only reason I didn't nominate the photo, myself. I think we should accept this as part of "nature" as we humans have made it, but that's a decision each person has to make, and it's really the major element of content in which the innovation of the Impressionists like Monet in "Impression: Aube" deviated from the tradition of idealistic depiction of pure nature for city people that goes back to ancient Rome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Request +   Comment a crop of 10-15% of the empty sky, will be better works for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      Done Thank you, I think you're absolutely right, it's better with less sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support it works better now. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I won't change my vote, but I consider the new crop unfortunate, because it crops out a higher-flying bird that was flying in the other direction. I think the composition was better and more peaceful with more sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I have no problems with standing on the tracks since it is explained in the description that these are museum tracks used only in the summer. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportAnd 7...--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Iturrieta - Fagus sylvatica 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thank you for your vote, King of Hearts. The background isn't sharp because there was fog, breaking up and closing again. Of course that could lead that someone could dislike this... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Special Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Monochrome was a great idea for this one. Brings out the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just for my curiosity: can I see please the color version too? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please give me a couple of days, I cannot prepare this right now. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Marmora Formation closeup.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 16:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Rocks and Minerals
  •   Info: all by СССР -- СССР (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Definitely a very interesting photo for VI, but no great composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't look like a FP to me for it being a flat texture, no visual impact. --Lucasbosch 17:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Lucas. Perhaps a smaller portion of it might have worked. Texture needs to be more uniform. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Reflection of Parque Cultural Paulista building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
  •   Info Inspired in Alvesgaspar minimalist pictures . All by --The Photographer 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support first impression is that someone laid a grid over a regular sky shot. Nicely aligned! --Lucasbosch 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good idea and an awesome result! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This grew on me. I like the interaction of the windows and the sky. By the way, I don't consider this photo minimalist in the slightest. If it reflected a cloudless sky, that would be different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Only the slightly off tones of some of the windows give it away as not being a gird overlay. And the distorted parts. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent -- Thennicke (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Winter-Regnitz-PC310004.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ANZAC Parade from the Australian War Memorial, Canberra ACT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 09:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade Westbucht und Pyramidenkogel 11012017 6006.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 08:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Perhaps you are right. But I better leave it the way it is. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Iridium-1 Launch (32312419215).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 21:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:F-22 Raptor flies during the AirPower over Hampton Roads Open House at Langley AFB Va., April 24, 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 20:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sala de Conciertos, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 22-24 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 19:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kids playing Pallanguli.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Lucasbosch 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucasbosch. If the two girls weren't partially cropped, I might very well consider it featurable, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Ikan. Good idea, but composition isn't FP level. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perhaps a VI or even QI, but otherwise per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Regietów Wyżny (Рeґєтiв) - dzwonnica 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I quite like this composition, but please crop out the stray bit of wood near the near left corner. I'm also wondering what the photo would look like if it were extended a bit further to the right to encompass more trees. I'm guessing that's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not, but I cut off to the left --Pudelek (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a little while before voting, but as I said, I do like it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice colors and clouds. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support Nothing like this nice summery scene to grab my attention on a wet and cloudy January day. However ... it would be better if the purple tinging on the clouds could be fixed or somehow ameliorated. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    I think that the purple is not bad... the storm was near --Pudelek (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I really like that wooden bell tower, and the rest of the composition - especially the light and clouds (the purple doesn't bother me - I've seen purple-rimmed clouds with my naked eye) is good enough to satisfy me. I think this photo is special enough to be among the elite. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2015 Winobluszcz trójklapowy 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 12:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Abstract. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Figurative to me. :-) But I like it, too. Instead of calling it abstract, I'd say it has a very dynamic, flowing, satisfying structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the image doesn't impress me enough. The crop is quite narrow, so there only are so many leaves in frame, instead of a whole side of a house. I can imagine the rest, but I'd like to see it to be more impactful than that. --Lucasbosch 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's pretty, but I'm not really sure whether the subject is supposed to be the leaves or the drainpipe (Or is it supposed to be some kind of woodwork? See what I mean ...). Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 04:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportAnd 7... --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:08A112 in Chasha Depot.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 04:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info A5 Metro train was stopping in Chasha Deport, Canton, China. created by Towermega - uploaded by Towermega - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas1024 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Legolas1024 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition. -- King of ♠ 05:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Again I made the mistake of judging on my 1366x768 laptop while forgetting I was on my laptop, and assumed it was large enough because it filled my whole screen. Switching to   Neutral due to being minimum resolution without anything to compensate. -- King of ♠ 04:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Nicely composed, but unfortunately the glare on the rear carriages spoils it for me. —Bruce1eetalk 06:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice composition, but too small Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Perfectly good QI, I think (I guess it would remain to be seen whether it would pass if nominated at QIC), but compared to the great photos of trains in nature by Kabelleger, Poco and others, this palls. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose On the one hand, I would like to strongly encourage more photos of trains or rail vehicles from above or below the view plane rather than on it ... as this shows, it can add more interest. And I love all the cool colors.

    However ... as King notes the small size works against it, and I also think that large cloud flattens the light and distracts from the train a little. There are also perspective problems apparent at the right of the image.

    This, unfortunately, is why I wind up opposing so many DP/S images no matter how wonderful they otherwise could be. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Question - What does DP/S stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"Digital point and shoot". In other words the type of low-end digital camera widespread before the advent of the smartphone. A lot of my early pictures here on Commons and Wikipedia were taken with one. Some of them actually made QI, but I'd never dream of nominating them for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 20:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, just a very good QI --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei1. Dull colors don't work well against cloudy sky and the forms by themselves are not enough to overcome this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Lucasbosch 12:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose needs crop and better light (sun) --Mile (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong in both points. --A.Savin 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ---Pudelek (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Paris-7957a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by idobi - uploaded by idobi - nominated by Idobi -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning. I love the way the moon appears. Quality could be better especially on the right side but sufficient for FP. -- King of ♠ 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose great composition, vivid colors, excellent mood - if only image quality were better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like composition, perfect moon-clouds situation. Its not so sharp, but saw camera is not the latest model.--Mile (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It either is or is not an FP, based on the results, regardless of what equipment is used. And in this case, I think it's too noisy and unsharp to be one of the greatest night cityscape pictures, although the composition is beautiful. I would welcome any efforts by idobi to address these issues, because I'd love to be able to support this picture, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I find it a beautiful picture, but the quality is not great.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Even given that it was a long exposure, we've seen that these images can be less noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 09:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All water reflections of trees are beautiful. I think this picture is missing something, like brilliant colors or an outstanding composition, that would set it apart from the others. -- King of ♠ 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info @Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts, Jkadavoor, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner: @Livioandronico2013, INeverCry, Agnes Monkelbaan: I added more saturation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colors are nice, but nothing quite worthy of FP in terms of the subject IMHO, it's not so interesting. I would have liked better separation of the trees in front and the background trees, to make it more visually appealing. --Lucasbosch 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast beween the dark trees in the foreground and the brighter trees in the background --Llez (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Llez. I also have to say, particularly in response to King, that having looked at more than my share of water-reflection images while creating and populating those categories, this one did make me stop while scrolling through here. What to me works is that the trees sort of suggest a colonnade, and a slightly irregular one at that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for putting into words what I think a lot of us had probably noticed unconsciously. Christian Ferrer, the slight change in the new edit is fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good job Christian. Quite a nice natural abstract. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Berdorf (LU), Aesbachtal -- 2015 -- 4550.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Unsharp foreground on the left is slightly distracting to me and might be cropped out, but I don't know what that would do to the composition. And the composition is the main reason I support this picture. It's a kind of lovely miniature landscape, with the cobwebs between the plants accentuating their formal relationship in the picture frame. It's best viewed at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm too distracted by all the plants on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case, a tighter crop would to accentuate the main subject would be nice.--Lucasbosch 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'll crop out a part of the bottom within the next days. --XRay talk 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. Too many random plants that are in focus distract the viewer. -- King of ♠ 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others an no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed @Daniel Case, Lucasbosch, King of Hearts, Uoaei1: Crop is now improved. Hopefully it's better now. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, still doesn't work for me. There are a lot of in-focus plants on the ground, so I don't think there's any way to fix it by cropping. -- King of ♠ 01:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is the first time I realized that you're objecting not to out-of-focus plants but to in-focus plants! You're considering this a macro of the two plants, not as a miniature landscape. I don't think in a landscape you'd normally want everything but 2 large trees to be a blur, would you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Caye Caulker Belize aerial (20688990128).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by dronepicr on Flickr - uploaded by User:Dronepicr - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is an outstanding drone picture. My only hesitation in nominating it is that I hope people don't vote against it because the angle of the photo makes the ground diagonal, instead of straight, but I nominate it, anyway, to see what you all think. P.S. I didn't see a category for drone or aerial pictures; if you know of a good subcategory to add to the "Category" line, please feel free to add it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No, I find the ground fine; as long as the horizon is level, which it appears to be. Great find too! Really lots of wow, and for a drone pic image quality is ok, but could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I really should involve myself with Photo Challenge more, but I wish there was some "QI" barrier to the nominations or something - unfortunately some of the winners are shocking from a photographic perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's because the judges have to work with the submissions they get. When they get higher-quality submissions, the results improve. Quite a few FPs have been among the top 3 results in photo challenges over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You will have to rework the colors here, think blue is +, green is missing. Some saturation maybe. --Mile (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colors and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, I struggle to decide what the subject is --Lucasbosch 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No argument on "no wow", but to me, anyway, the subject seems obvious: the bright area smack dab in the center of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: The file name is, mainly, "Caye Caulker Belize", which describes the islands, so already the file name is not optimal/confusing if the white thing is the main subject. Also the white thing seems to be only captured in part, there is a missing part on the bottom left, confirmed by satellite images. --Lucasbosch 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for expounding on your point of view. I don't share it, but I understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 13:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Moscow ParkKulturyR vestibule 04-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 07:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
  •   Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the colors and enjoy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I just can't keep my eyes off the power lines. The left crop is also a little distracting. -- King of ♠ 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Power lines. Yann (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cables in foreground and lamppost to the left leans distractingly much. Main subject itself is quite nicely lit, but the overall composition does not convince me, sorry -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak support I have faced this same dilemma so many times myself ... great angle but for the wires. And so many times I've sighed and put the camera down. So молодец for trying where I usually give up. And for doing your best to make them less distracting instead of cheating entirely and cloning them out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Per the others, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The curves in the photograph are great, even if the power lines distract from it some. WClarke (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Natural nude tree.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 20:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please tell us why you think this photo should be featured. I'd like to have your thoughts on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I could tell you it is a study on texture and volume, or that the forms on these trees are interesting, or that I and some others have a dirty mind... ;) Please see #REDIRECT[[1]] and #REDIRECT[[2]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reject. Charles (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, it was clear for me after a split second, why you nominated this, Tomas. Hahaha. Well spotted. A brilliantly illuminated trunk, nice texture and shape. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. File:Enterolobium cyclocarpum 01.jpg has much greater visual impact. I would support that. lNeverCry 02:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried to explore some suitable categories. Jee 04:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, nothing featurable here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - So ultimately, I think this is a moderately funny joke, since it was explained to me, but the composition doesn't really add up for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good shot of interesting stuff. I would decrease sky noise a bit, and put into description is it active or a museum. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I slept on this photo, and my verdict is that it's beautiful. Decreasing the sky noise would be fine, but it's a very fine grain that doesn't bother me at all. I really like the texture of the wooden chapel and fences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good image but the shadowed fence make it not outstanding. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, I like the alternation of light and shadow and think it contributes to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree. The main subject is literally in the "spotlight" this way. I'm not sure whether it would have resulted in a better outcome had I waited for afternoon sunlight to also shine on the palisades. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Delicate light and colours on the main subject and very balanced composition. I do not mind the fence in shadow. Sky could be selectively de-noised, but it is really only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The shade is not so prominent in a large view. Jee 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would say edu. value as first here.--Mile (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely done -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support well composed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Heaven Shall Burn - Rock am Ring 2016 - Leonhard Kreissig - 25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 00:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by LeoDE - uploaded by LeoDE - nominated by LeoDE -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The singer is in a strong pose, but the background is unattractive. This would've been better if he was at left in the frame and some of the audience took up the right of the frame. lNeverCry 01:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  Info Just for Information: Audience wasn't possible due to the huge pit. But thanks alot for your feedbak --LeoDE (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very powerful concert foto. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Frank! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition, background lighting, sharpness. Charles (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is a good and expressive concert photo, and I like the background stage illumination. It is as if it pushes the singer towards the audience. The crop of the foot could have been better but oh well. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles + random compo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is for sure not one of the very best --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like this photo, but ultimately, Uoaei1's argument really cuts to the heart of the matter and carries the day for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Window detail De Bazel Vijzelstraat Amsterdam 2016-09-13-6627.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 22:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info De Bazel is a monumental building in Amsterdam named after the architect Karel de Bazel. It was completed in 1926 and stands as an example of Brick Expressionism. This nominated picture is a detail of the facade, including four windows, and shows how bricks are used as ornamentation in complicated patterns. Today, the building houses Amsterdam City Archives. Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid! Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 07:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture. Love detailed images like this of architecture, and the blue contrasts well with the brick and stone. WClarke (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and the seventh :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)