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

File:River Narmada from Maheshwar Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ostankino Tower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info The Ostankino TV Tower in Moscow. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very good, but I see 2 dust spots near the upper left corner and 1 on the left side lower down in the sky that need to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I removed all dust spots. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Apart from those dust spots I see a slight bending / CCW-tilt. Repairing this would significantly raise your chances. Having seen your picture in QI, I expected to find it here in the FP candidates ... --PtrQs (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but per PtrQs. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Entrance on Sonnenstrasse, Munich, February 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 07:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
  •   Info Entrance to building on Sonnenstraße 15, Munich; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really excellent application of abstract techniques in modern architecture, and a fine picture. This stands out to me as particularly good, even among FP candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Als Münchnerin - ja! --Schnobby (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 09:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality (but can you scrape the chewing gum off?) Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and per Charles if possible. --cart-Talk 10:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Sultan Mohammad Khodabanda Sahand Ace.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 06:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info uploaded and nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 06:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sahand Ace 06:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Pretty small file. lNeverCry 07:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Small but beautiful, but yes, we prefer much bigger, super-high-resolution, detailed pictures of art. I still would support a feature of this, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image description page does not indicate a source. this version appears to have more detail and is certainly larger. Since it is possible that Commons has many tens of thousands of well-scanned artworks, surely FP requires we feature only the "finest". And for that, I would expect proper sourcing, high resolution/detail, and ideally an embedded colour profile to ensure the colours are correct. This image appears rather saturated compared to the link. -- Colin (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
  •   Comment I don't think you saw this message the last time you had three nominations going since Yann was so quick to fix things then and remove the message. You can not have more than two nominations going on at the same time. If you want this nomination to be opened, you have to withdraw one of the other two. You can also wait for the voting period for one of the other noms to end and then renominate this. --cart-Talk 10:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimla night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info -- Perched on a hillside Shimla is the current capital and largest city of the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Previously it was capital of the Indian state of Punjab and, before independence, the summer capital of British India. Shimla is a major tourist destination owing to the large number of colonial buildings, temples, churches in the city, the UNESCO World Heritage Kalka-Shimla Railway, and the mild subtropical highland climate. All by me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo! So this is where the shot the backdrop for Blade Runner. --cart-Talk 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support After some days of waiting for the next wow - this is it! --PtrQs (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive night photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even though all the details are visible, the overall impression is too dark. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture for such a dark and humid night. How long was the exposure? WClarke 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1s + 4s + 15s, iso 200, f/8. Overall it's pretty close to the 4 sec exposures. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Detail van een met rijp bedekte eik (Quercus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 16:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Familie: Fagaceae.
  •   Info Detail of a frost-covered oak (Quercus) in the fog. For me the picture radiates calm. Trust. It will be fine. all by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Pretty significant camera shake which was apparent to me even at preview size. It's a nice scene but even with VR/IS, it's very difficult to get acceptable sharpness with 1/13s handheld at 85mm. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with the other opposers... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Lanchonete frente da praça da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 12:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 12:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Request although the pillar in the left is vertical, I feel a disturbing CCW tilt in this pic. Can this be fixed? --PtrQs (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy, lacks clear main subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea, but framing the photo with the menu and the green fruits is not doing the photo any favors, shielding the viewer from the shop. It would have been better if you had taken one step further in and shot just the area with the chairs around the counter. --cart-Talk 18:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Iridescent clouds during snowfall 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
  •   Info Rainbow-colored/iridescent clouds during a snowfall over Lysekil, Sweden. The fringes of the clouds are so thin the water droplets in them produce rainbows. The photo is taken during some interesting weather in the afternoon so it is the sun you see and the dots are snowflakes. All by me -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment My first thought was that maybe that's what happened last night in Sweden but then I saw the timestamp so we will have to do some more research. Regarding the picture I find it very good compositionally so   Support from my side. --Code (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Moody and interesting. I like how the blotchy clouds over the disc of the sun sort of imitate the lunar maria. Or maybe that's just me, who knows? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is certainly a good photo, though I haven't decided yet whether to support a feature for it, but I prefer File:Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall.jpg, which has more snow and the dark trees as a dramatic contrast with the sky. Just sky is not quite as striking to me and gives me less grounding, literally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that pic very much too. Unfortunately, I think the cut sun in that will make it a no-go for the folks here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? I didn't realize there were objections to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you can stay out of the cold for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Brown-cheeked-fulvetta-from-kottayam-kerala.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 10:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is not a FP, sorry, and to me it isn't an QI, either. The lighting is not good, the head is in shadow. Sharpness overall is acceptable but in the head below the bar, sorry. Poco2 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Picture taken early morning, actual lighting, got the feather details sharp so thought of nominating, is there a requirement that any particular parts should be sharp for birds for being nominated to be FP, i meant like head as mentioned in previous comment? Deepugn (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. Sometimes, people have gotten away with the tail being unsharp, but not the head, and you should sign your post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment thank you, wanted to get the feedback, i hope you agreed with the lighting comment also. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want feedback, you should ask for that at Commons:Photography critiques or submit your photos to COM:QIC first where you will get that. FPC is for the finished photos, even if some things are changed here during discussions. When you present a photo here, it should already be as good as you can possibly get it. And as Ikan said; please sign your posts. --cart-Talk 11:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, i never knew about the critiques thing, think that will be a good place for my need. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Larnaca 01-2017 img37 LCA Airport.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the long depth of field and the decorations (structural elements?) on the ceiling, and the light is pretty good for an airport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motive, well balanced and implemented. The contrasts of warm and cold give the image a special touch. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Sharpness overall just ok, nice ceiling, the rest nothing wild, too dark overall Poco2 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination. I for myself hesitated to suggest it, as I know airports with much more interesting iteriors. On the other hand, the picture is QI and it is almost impossible to create *perfect* photos of airport interiors, because, unlike Diliff's and Code's churches, they are never empty of people ;) -A.Savin 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Our churches are often busy, we just twist the truth by being highly selective about when to click the shutter. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too boring for me. No wow. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Draceane – LucasT 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jamaican giant anole (Anolis garmani) juvenile.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 19:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info This little lizard will grow to around 40cm, but for now it is 15cm long and happy to pose in a cut roadside bamboo, high in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMHO Chromatic noise, white aura around of the head, lack of DoF. I added notes --The Photographer 20:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a white glow above in the head exactly and forming the contour white like a white wind blowing over aligator face, this effect could be maybe the result of a wrong tecnique on the background layer in the noise reduction procedure --The Photographer 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No idea what you are talking about I'm afraid. I didn't use layers. Charles (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes It was a suposition, however, the problem still there. The main problem is noise and Lack of DoF --The Photographer 12:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, lack of DOF. – LucasT 08:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks overprocessed to me, see legs or the border of the bamboo Poco2 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Well, I thought it was cute! Charles (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's a very cute image and I am a rectil lover. My comment was only about the image quality. Sorry --The Photographer 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ahum... you might want to rephrase that... --cart-Talk 17:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
LOL @ -Talk, what if it is not a slip? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Procession during Easter Friday in Santa Ana Guanajuato.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 18:55:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good and unique photograph of people, which I like to see on Commons. I personally like it in black and white; seeing the color version would ruin the photograph for me. In addition to that, though others may disagree, I like the grain because it seems to makes it feel more raw or gritty. The higher ISO (1600) used is also more unique when compared to other featured pictures, and in this case is used well. WClarke 19:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Unique image, however, strong noise --The Photographer 20:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Technical perfection is not always necessary nor needed. Photography is a language in itself, and as in language, correct grammar is not always necessary to convey a message. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with WClarke on this one. It is such a strong photo that the graininess lends an even more documentary quality to it and matches the darkness in the photo. --cart-Talk 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Is this a contemporary image converted to B/W? Then I've to agree with The Photographer, the noise is too high for FP Poco2 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, I guess 2015 can be considered contemporary... But I strongly disagree that noise is too high for FP. First of all, nowhere in the book says that noise cannot be present in an image, or that it is a requirement for FP. Noise is the result of several factors, one of them being high ISO. High ISO is the result of light conditions, and you either take the image with correct exposure in natural light, which in this case lent itself to the overall aspect, or you take it with flash and eliminate the dramatic contrast, or you don´t take the picture at all. As I said above, photography is a language, and as such, it has wide latitude as a form of expression. In this case, noise is a result of light conditions that necessitated the use of high ISO. I have always, and always will disagree with the pixel counters in this forum that put superficial form over depth. Imagine if Robert Capa #REDIRECT[[1]] were to upload his famous image #REDIRECT[[2]] to this forum, or if someone did it for him; under common practices here the image would never make it! Grainy, soft, cut off, not large enough, out of focus, etc., etc. Human events are phenomenological in nature, they flow like a river, never repeat themselves, and good photography, even if it lacks technical perfection, captures the essence of the phenomena regardless of technical perfection. What is a beautiful flower without aroma? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Your point is well taken, and technical perfection is certainly not needed, but what would the drawback of just a bit of noise reduction be? Would it adversely affect the picture in some way? Please explain because I'm not so knowledgeable about such things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Newport Beach Aerial Sunset by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 15:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Don (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Don (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- No wow. KennyOMG (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Kenny. – LucasT 08:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The reflection of the sun is nice, but it's incongruous with the beach. A photo of one or the other might have worked, but not both. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Airbus A350-941 F-WWCF MSN002 ILA Berlin 2016 17.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  •   Info c/u/n — Julian H. 13:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportJulian H. 13:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Many of airplane photos are rather boring, but this one certainly not. Really good timing, composition, and light. --A.Savin 14:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per A.Savin: I'm not easily wowed by (pictures of) airliners, but this one's just excellent. Looks like a landing rather than a take-off to me? Might want to add that to the description … --El Grafo (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I added the fact that it's a takeoff to the description. — Julian H. 18:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Code (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, this picture has a excellent quality --The Photographer 21:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 22:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Oh yes! --cart-Talk 23:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a very attractive picture WClarke 23:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent sharp focus to the aeroplane --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot! --Gyrostat (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I have to agree with the others. This is a great shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ceiling light fixture in Hofstatt Mall, Munich, February 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Per Ikan; couldn't help noting that it made me think of File:Lamps EM Belysning Viborg Denmark 2016-12-30-.jpg post by Slaunger several weeks back. WClarke 23:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually like this much more than Slaunger's because of the unity of form of the lights, which contrasts nicely with their very different perspectives and material. As Ikan notes, it's actually quite calming to look at. There are some blown areas, but this is forgivable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Famagusta 01-2017 img10 Carmelite Church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Indian-lotus-kottayam-kerala.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 08:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 1, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 07:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Бандери 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 19:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done The tilt has been fixed so that the first tower is now centred.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, the tilt is not fixed. It is titled about 2.15° CCW. The clouds at the horizon should be horizontal. And as the power line poles are most probably vertical, there is also perspective distortion. I made a tentative correction, but it should preferably be down from RAW: File:Бандери 2015 (edit).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending correction pointed out by Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Miniature pasted on cardboard. “Karim Khan Zand with the Ottoman Ambassador Vehbi Effendi”. Attributed to Abu’l Hasan Mustawfi Iran; 1775- Sahand Ace.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 13:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@W.carter: I fixed it-- Sahand Ace 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This looks like a faithful representation of an artwork that needs restoration. I'm having trouble with the idea of supporting it for a feature because of the degree of damage that is restorable (unlike a ruin of a church or a sculpture of a figure from ancient Greece that no longer has arms or legs). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:120 inch HDPE pipe installation.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 05:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the frame within a frame, and the silhouettes of the men working on the distant pipe. -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A picture that's worth to enlarge! --PtrQs (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a great photo that looks like a vinyl record from a distance until you see the people in the middle. dllu (t,c) 02:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting, I saw it was a 35mm, I wonder what would be the result when taken by far but with a 200mm and crushing perspective. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      Comment @ Christian Ferrer, good point... Whenever possible, I back away as much as I can and start with the longest zoom and walk my way in... I did exactly what you say, but my lens was only 135mmm (216 mm full frame equivalent) and got pretty good result. I just uploaded those versions here #REDIRECT[[3]] and here #REDIRECT[[4]]. The reason I chose the one nominated is because a shorter focal length game me more DoF and altered the proportion in order to get more pipe wall (with longer focal length the inner wall shrinks) and get an idea of longer distance. The next pipe is about 100 meters away. In this case is a matter of preference. Thanks for your comment and support. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Robin Hood made right in the center of the target :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Artistic. Very good job. Cute. Lyric photography IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks sort of like HAL, but with different colors, when seen at thumb size. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Facade of the Palace Hotel, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Since walls like this are used to test lenses for distortion, I can't help but notice it isn't perfectly regular. Do you have a lens profile you can apply in your raw conversion software? Have you considered making a b&w version -- the lighting isn't a feature here, nor the sky interesting, and you are left with a study of patterns and form, which works well in b&w. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have the lens distortion profile. I have either forgotten to apply it or there is some residual perspective distortion on the left side. Anyhow, the distortion is extremely small, much less than Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg which has several supports even though it has a large amount of barrel distortion, especially visible in the bottom corners. Compared to that nomination, this photo also has similar lighting and a vastly more architecturally significant, interesting building. dllu (t,c) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm just being picky. Not an oppose reason. I haven't really decided if there's enough wow here for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I've just replaced the image with the version with lens correction profiles. It should be well corrected now. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring. Charles (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

  •   Info Monochrome version. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Crosswalk of Market at Third, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Absolutely YES! KennyOMG (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't get what's featurable about this. It's a crosswalk with some lines in the street. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I nominated this picture because, in my opinion, the strong diagonal lines gives a striking geometric quality to the iamge. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not exactly Shibuya crossing. The grey overcast weather and the lack of traffic or pedestrians mean this photo doesn't have the necessary spark or life. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I intentionally selected this image out of dozens to have less traffic. It is too visually cluttered to have this intersection full of random cars. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The shapes and lines make this image very appealing, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shapes and lines. The light gives the photo a gritty NYPD Blue feeling. Not all FPs need to be some manicured Technicolor version of Legoland. --cart-Talk 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not my point at all. Gritty can be good, but it's very hard for the mundane to wow me. This doesn't look like New York to me, though: We haven't had any trolleys for decades (since the 1950s, I think - my parents remembered them but they didn't exist in my lifetime). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think hisher point was more about the aesthetic of NYPD Blue rather than literally being in New York itself. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That would be her point. But NYPD Blue was about New York, not San Francisco. As a New Yorker who's also spent a good deal of time in San Francisco, I'm probably too close to both objects to really be able to understand the broad scope of what she means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Who's 'she', the cat's mother?   Well, dllu you are absolutely right. I was talking about the feel of a city you get when you watch that TV-show. Ikan, you are taking things far too literary sometimes. I know that I should refrain from speaking metaphorically when describing the mood in photos, but sometimes it is what best describes the feeling I get for a pic. Have you ever been to a wine tasting Ikan? At such events they can speak of the the wine's "nutty flavor with earthy tones and a hint of licorice" to describe the taste of the wine even though there are no nuts, soil or licorice in the actual wine. Using films, songs and TV-series to describe moods in photos work along the same line. Also, please keep in mind that I'm Swedish, and even though I've been to both New York and San Francisco and know they are two very different cities, to me this photo (and NYPD Blue) simply looks "American". I'm sure you could make the same sort of generalization wrt Stockholm and Gothenburg, and simply see them as "Swedish" even if trams are more common in Gothenburg. --cart-Talk 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't been to Sweden yet. But you basically said the same thing as I: I'm too close to the objects to see the panoramic view you see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed a very different take, one that made me stop and take notice when I was scrolling through new nominations. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment You have to give a reason for opposing. Is being different the reason for the oppose? dllu (t,c) 20:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry ... I had meant to type support. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a messy composition. Charles (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful photograph. WClarke 20:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't why....but i like the composition,isn't messy for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Funchal Jardim Monte 2016 7.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 21:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but for me this is a snapshot, not a FP. --PtrQs (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are probably a number of good things to photograph on this location, but this is too unsharp and the composition is not good. --cart-Talk 10:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You know you've been doing this too long when your first reaction to seeing that patch of blue in the upper right was to try to find the curves panel ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 16:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All be me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry - generically pretty countryside, but this composition doesn't make much of an impression on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I kind of like it, but I think the impact of the pathway would be better if the photo was cropped just where it ceases to be seen (+ a clean cut between the trees). That way it looks like it went on forever. I'll make a note. --cart-Talk 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion W.carter, but I don't know... it's true that the image is more centered on the subject, and this is not a bad idea but this change not a lot the image, so I prefer to keep the space and this aspect ratio Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Oh well, you can't get everything in life. :) It's a good pic anyway. --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Composition, light, landscape - everything is beautiful here. The DoF could be somewhat better but I know that's getting difficult at 70mm. Nice lens, btw. --Code (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, although cart's suggested crop couldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 16:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely composition with the bridge and the river in parallel,more the sunset light. Adorable. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Japan tea ceremony 1165.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 13:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There are some very minor flaws in this, but taken as a whole, the photo is serene and simply beautiful! -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Also a powerful reminder of my own inability to sit in seiza for more than 2 minutes ;) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Dull light. Maybe the specialness of this photo is lost on me, but what I see is a very dark bokehish background to a drably lit scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Serene, yes, and I love the color, but those three red things in the back make it a little too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support @Ikan. You were right. I changed some things a bit which didn´t find perfect.--Ermell (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: Thanks for the fixing. The 'ping' system doesn't work the same way here as it does on Twitter (the way you wrote just "@Ikan") so I will ping him here (@Ikan Kekek:) in the way that will get him the message. Look at the code in the editing window and you will see how it is done. --cart-Talk 15:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better. Moderate   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the best quality, but good composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:12 Abu'l Hasan Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 08:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Abu'l Hasan - uploaded by Eugene a - nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, but to my understanding, this photo should be deleted from Commons. See the "rights statement" here: "Copyright with museum". And if you click "terms of use", you'll see that only non-commercial use is allowed without special permission: "To request images and rights for commercial use, please contact reprorights@si.edu. To request images and rights for the press, please contact pressasia@si.edu. For full legal details, please see the Smithsonian’s terms of use for digital assets." Since Commons uses a Creative Commons Copyleft that enables free commercial or non-commercial use with credit, these terms are not compatible with this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    This is covered by {{PD-ART}}. The WMF's position is "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". These sites try to be greedy with their licensing, but Commons offers them the middle-finger salute. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice to see something different. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - INeverCry, thanks for talking me through that. I guess more knowledgeable legal minds than I have examined U.S. laws and casework and determined that a lawsuit by the Smithsonian wouldn't be successful. That being the case: Judging the photo on its merits, it is unsurprisingly an excellent photo, and this is a beautiful Mughal painting in very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ikan Kekek that is in many museums, wannabe "copyright". If this is from 1620 no question about legal right. Wondering how can museums etc are allowed to put such "copyright notice". Its not legal, but i saw many. --Mile (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The copyright is on the photograph, not the artwork itself. Art photography is a real skill, as we all know. The question of whether the copyright has the force of law is the one I don't know the answer to, but haven't some art photographers sued on the basis that their work was being used without any kind of royalties or even credit being given? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: The biggest threatened lawsuit Commons has encountered was from the NPG London (see User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage). WMF backed up Derrick and said they didn't consider Sweat of the brow an acceptable policy and were confident a suit by the NPG would be unsuccessful in the US. This came after a mass transfer of NPG images by Derrick, who is based in the bay area. A British citizen or company might not have fared so well against the NPG. lNeverCry 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[5] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [6]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [7]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [8]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [9]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photoEdit

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I will duly   Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, 360x180, 160427, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • And with this technology, not so many 2D church interiors are going to get FP status. Isn't there a way to show the image in 2D better than this rather weird construction whcih puts me off? Charles (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Charles, generally these images are shot with an ultra-wide angle lens or a fisheye lens, and aren't nearly as detailed as we have come to expect from the stitched images such as Diliff's, which might be shot with a 50mm lens. I think there's room for both kind of image on Commons. These images are best enjoyed interactively, and that is certainly educational, but have limited use for single frame or print purposes. I think we'll continue to feature lots of 2D church interiors. Compare the level of detail in File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Innenraum, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, 150806, ako.jpg, which is also deserving of FP imo. -- Colin (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question How are these images made ? Certainly not consumable in print format/and can be made sense only with an interactive viewer, and Commons require images that can be seen or printed, right? This feels like a video in the interactive viewer, are these getting FP nominations now ? May be, then the FPC text should be updated. Just, IMHO -- Dey.sandip (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Dey.sandip They are made by stitching together many individual photos using a tool like Hugin or PtGui and choosing an equilateral projection, while ensuring the vertical covers 180° and the horizontal 360°. Currently the viewer is experimental tool at wmflabs but the plan is to integrate this into Wikipedia just like viewing a video is integrated into Wikipedia. So they aren't much different to video - a special viewer is required. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dey.sandip: We've already featured a lot of these. I think the educational value of such 3D pictures is extremely high. It gives you a full impression of a building and makes distances and proportions visible in a way a 2D picture never could. I think we should strongly encourage people to create and upload much more of these pictures. Of course that doesn't mean that any of these should be promoted FP but on the other hand why shouldn't the better ones be FP as well as any good 2D picture? --Code (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Flagellum base diagram en.svg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 05:43:22
 

  •   Info The accuracy has been disputed since 2012 (see discussion at talk), and while I'm not familiar enough with the subject to offer an informed opinion about the dispute, we shouldn't have something on the featured list if it has a longstanding accuracy dispute. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nom. lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nominator. --Cayambe (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nom and User:Leprof 7272's remark on the file's talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haßberge Scheune 5153908.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some weeks ago on QI. I like this colourful image and I hope that six or seven more persons like it, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice! --cart-Talk 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The town where I come 90 % of the houses look like this, I'm only explaining why it's not wow for me. --The Photographer 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of the building is hidden and if that was intentional, the idea doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It was the "yin and yang" pattern of the green and yellow around the building that struck me as significant. This is the sort of photo where you can choose to see the center or the surroundings. --cart-Talk 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very good image! Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - With blocks of almost solid color, I don't find that this picture is really that rewarding to move my eye around (you could think of it this way: it lacks the linear arabesque that I like to see in 2D static visual art, which gives it a feeling of dynamism). That said, if the yellow flowers were only beyond the house, I think the pure visual impact of that division would cause the photo to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Comercio en la plaza del 9 de abril de 1947, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 77.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Grocery and grocery shop in the April 9th 1947 Square, better known as Grand Socco, Tangier, Morocco. All by me, Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I wasn't wowed until I opened this at full size and smelled the spices and the musty old wood in the shop. :) --cart-Talk 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice documentary work --The Photographer 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor lighting and composition - just look at the red thing in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per cart and The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles, poor light conditions. No FP for me. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Barely   Oppose - I'm really torn because this is a good portrait of a shopkeeper at his store, and the light conditions are what they are and give the photo a realism I can accept. But what really distracts me is precisely the red plastic thing in front. It spoils the symmetry of the spice bins. In the end, as much as I like this photo, when I think about whether it's really one of the best photos on the site, I reluctantly demur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment So, when a photographer barges into a store in Tangier, he should bring his own lighting equipment and ask the owner to rearrange the items in the shop so that the photo will be more aesthetically pleasing for a bunch of picky westerners, rather than documentary? --cart-Talk 13:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course not, but if you were to barge into a store and take a snap-shot, don't expect to become an FP. 11:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - High-quality work with plenty of illustrative value. One little plastic device at the edge of the frame can't ruin the whole thing. Real life, alas, isn't always tidy or "symmetrical." –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Montes de Vitoria - Quercus ilex 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done I should have seen this, sorry. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --PtrQs (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful lighting and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice one. --Code (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice image, though I would crop 15% off the bottom and 5% off the top. Charles (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer it, Thanks. Charles (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Tree against landscape ... doesn't always work as well as we'd like to think when taking the picture, but this time it does. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gomateswara, Shravanabelagola.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 18:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Simply wonderful! KennyOMG (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Really nice picture and composition, however, the image is cut in both pinky toes level --The Photographer 18:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with The Photographer, but we have so few such images that also contain a human figure doing something/worshipping that this elevates it. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the cut so much. Such a large statue has to be cut somewhere and a wider crop would have diminished the person in the image too much. Now you can focus on her beautiful gesture without being too distracted by the statue. Very nicely done. --cart-Talk 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks better at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 18:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info First sunbeams sweep over a winter landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like your early sunrise hoar frost images a lot and it reminds me that I should get up earlier myself for shooting but this one doesn't convince me as a FP, sorry. The middle tree which seems to be the main subject results in a too centred composition and it covers the water behind which could be interesting or not but at least would give a bit more depth. And I would prefer that there wouldn't be these cut-off branches on the right. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lovely scene, but per Basotxerri – LucasT 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basotxerri. lNeverCry 06:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Basotxerri. I don't mind the framing with the trees but the diagonal slice of road is unfortunately counterproductive. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Question: this picture is better?  --Famberhorst (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative, another version.Edit

 

  •   Info First sunbeams sweep over a winter landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Smog nad Nową Rudą.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 15:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good documentation of an unnatural phenomenon, but not so beautiful, in my opinion. I think that "Nowa Ruda, view with smog" might be a good scope for a VI nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I changed category. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Actually, it is a natural phenomenon—see temperature inversion. I've seen it often in winter in similar situations, usually a bluish haze over some ski village where a lot of fireplaces are being used. This looks to me almost like coal was being burned in a lot of the village? Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Inversions are a natural phenomenon, but smog is not. Now, if this were a picture of vog (volcanic fog) over the Big Island of Hawaii, that would be a different story. Of course that's a side point. You and the others are wowed by the picture, and that's what counts most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: It's fair to say that the smog is an unnatural phenomenon resulting from the naturally occurring inversion layer. Whatever. You're right that the only thing the matters is that we like or don't like the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Пелистер 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 13:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Looking at the page history the comment was made by KennyOMG. Signatures can sometimes turn out faulty. --cart-Talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose B&W can make some photos more interesting but this is unfortunately not the case here. The loss of color doesn't add anything to this picture. B&W is also a totally different technique, most of the times you need some contrast and light adjustment after removing the color. --cart-Talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Cart, I too thought it was b&w but actually there is a little colour on their jackets. Btw, the photo is in AdobeRGB colourspace, which isn't suitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Colin, I was under the impression that AdobeRGB is fine if it is tagged and using modern browser (testing this here: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html), is AdobeRGB really still bad on the web nowadays? – Lucas 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colin, I stand corrected. I didn't look at the colourspace and thought it was just a bad BW conversion. It doesn't alter my non-wow-y feeling for the photo though. --cart-Talk 22:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
See User:Colin/BrowserTest. Modern desktop browsers are all colour managed wrt the JPG if there is an embedded colour profile. Articles such as the one you link unhelpfully use the word "tagged" but in fact EXIF tags indicating the colour space are totally ignored by all browsers: only the embedded profile matters. However, in an 8-bit JPG, using AdobeRGB will require a conversion to sRGB to display on 99% of desktop monitors, which runs a risk of causing posterisation in colour graduations such as the sky or on skin tones. It is intended as a profile for sending to a print shop because it better captures some of the colours that CMYK can print. Most people using AdobeRGB have read somewhere it has "more colours" (it doesn't, it has the same number of colours as sRGB, just covering a wider gamut) but since >99% of people have sRGB monitors, most people picking this profile cannot actually view these more vivid colours themselves. It was never intended as a shared display profile and is not recommended for web use. Mobile browsers are not colour managed (though someone told be the latest iPhone might be). Since mobile traffic is now at least as significant as desktop traffic in terms of numbers, and only growing, this remains a problem. Users on the mobile browsers that are not colour managed will see the wrong colours. Cart my colourspace comment wasn't really related to the desaturated/b&w confusion. Just something I spotted when looking at the EXIF to see if the file had been desaturated somewhat. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah! And here I thought it had some nifty function so you could see if a photo was in RGB or greyscale. --cart-Talk 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Cart, if the photo had genuinely been saved as a greyscale JPG then yes the EXIF would likely indicate that. But not many professional image programs even offer that option, and I think many b&w photos are actually colour JPGs. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The spot color (sort of) was a nice surprise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Works very well visually but the colourspace issue should be fixed. --Code (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless the image is still available as a raw file, and can be re-exported as an sRGB JPG, I wouldn't recommend changing the colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It isn't really wowing me. The footsteps idea is a common one and I'm puzzled at the choice of landscape aspect ratio here. It is just a bit too dull and murky and not dramatic enough for me. And the colour on the jackets isn't vivid enough to be a spot highlight. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition (footsteps). Charles (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think the image would be realistic without the footsteps. They clearly show that the mountaineers have passed through the snow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course the footprints are key. I didn't make myself clear, sorry. I think they would be better going on a diagonal. 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, at least for the moment. I actually like the composition, but it looks under-exposed to me. In a scene like this, where you have snow with strong sunlight you would expect at least some areas that are close to pure white, but there's plenty of space left on the right side of the histogram. EXIF data suggests that it was shot with an exposure compensation of -1/3 EV, while you'd normally compensate into the other direction for snowy landscapes. Easily fixed in post even from the JPG version, but I'd prefer it to be done by the author based on the RAW file. Maybe even pull down the shadows a bit, it's a pretty high-contrast scene after all. Personally, I'd also go for a pure b&w version, as that little bit of colour doesn't really add anything other than distraction to the image (for me). --El Grafo (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Weld Jallaba Show 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 11:00:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, I'll support this as soon as eyes and crop are fixed. --cart-Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree with cart. This would be a good example of "rear-curtain sync" in the Flash synchronization article on WP. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Waiting on the eyes to be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you IssamBarhoumi for fixing the eyes but there is still too much dark space above the dancer's head for my taste. It needs to be cropped. --cart-Talk 10:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's fine now. These things should have been taken care of at QIC, but things do get missed there from time to time. --cart-Talk 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very interesting: You captured motion in a still photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Industrilandskapet Norrköping February 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 09:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info The river Motala ström and the historic industrial district (known as Industrilandskapet) in Norrköping, Sweden. Industrilandskapet is a well-preserved industrial area, the industrial development started in the 17th century and carried on through to the middle of the 20th century, and a number of woollen spinning mills and cotton factories were established.
  • Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can't help thinking that this would have been better in color, the buildings are not interesting enough for a BW conversion. --cart-Talk 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Mild support I too wonder what a color version would look like, but in grayscale I'm just blown away by the perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive view. I think the b/w conversion works well in this case although I'm also curious how the coloured version looks like. --Code (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be interested to see a color version, but in my case, I think it's an idle curiosity, as I'm happy to accept the photo as is. I think using black & white helps accentuate the industrial character of the buildings and the industrial use of the watercourse. And what makes the photo special to me is the long depth of field looking down the watercourse and the plunging reflections of every structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:The triumph of french painting The apotheosis of Poussin,Le Sueur and Le Brune - Louvre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 08:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Neutral Excellent painting art work, however, the quality of this shot doesn't honor to the painting. Satured colors that result in too yellow temperature, lack of details (Have you tried build it from the RAW? and not use just the camera internal building). Also extreme lens distortion in corners, a common problem already commented an others nominations. Btw, Remember that it's only MHO --The Photographer 11:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I sincerely don't understand what you mean for "MHO". --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment On colors and the details even don't answer because it is personal matter, on "distortions" I'll note that it is a roof is curved there some problems to straighten it, like this[10]. Thank you --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are someone's fingers near the right lower corner --PtrQs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

*  Oppose per PtrQs --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   DonePtrQs,Martin Falbisoner I honestly do not ever put an opposition to something that is easily solved, however, each one has its own way. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing that; I'm also fine with the tighter crop. Of course I'll   Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my intervention, but as those ghostly fingers were still fumbling at this QI, I couldn't ignore them     Support --PtrQs (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment PtrQs i don't said that you must ignore,simply ask to resolve and not oppose. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Catedral de la Dormición de la Madre de Dios, Varna, Bulgaria, 2016-05-27, DD 109-111 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 22:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna, Bulgaria. The temple is the largest and most famous Bulgarian Orthodox cathedral in the Bulgarian Black Sea port city of Varna, and the second largest in Bulgaria (after cathedral Alexander Nevski in Sofia). Officially opened in 1886, it's the residence of the bishopric of Varna and Preslav and one of the symbols of Varna. All by me, Poco2 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent and beautiful. Btw, it's interesting that you keep referring to churches as temples - which strikes me as rather unusual (due to major theological differences between these two terms). Afaik only the Spanish language uses "templo" in a Christian context. Well, rather off-topic and of no further importance here, just an observation of mine... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment I don't know much Magyar, but I do recall that the Magyar word for church is "templom". So that's at least one more language.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I added a note, it's tilt in CW direction --The Photographer 10:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    The Photographer: I've uploaded a new version to improve the symmetry --Poco2 21:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support Thanks, ok now --The Photographer 10:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You will have to correct colors and CA (yellow and purple on windows). HDR is killing nice fresco colors of church. I dont see what are HDR exsposures. Composition isnt lucky, main objects to focus is probably line between two columns, and Jesus is covered with wire. --Mile (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid that for me the wires and lights are just too intrusive for FP. And Mile's "Jesus is covered with wire" is the worst of it. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sahand Ace 12:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Jesus won't approve of this. – LucasT 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment ok, this is one of the top three most bizarre comments I've seen here!   --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As this wire is installed horizontally, there is no chance to avoid it without loosing symmetry. Therefore I would trust in Jesus' mercy. --PtrQs (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Here is what you got in less than a minute of work link --Mile (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Jesus wouldn't still be happy :) --Poco2 19:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • He might, if you will push harder. --Mile (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Juan Carlos Lentijo & Ikuo Izawain (02813332).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 15:31:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created by Greg Webb / IAEA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would not have thought to nominate this one, but since 2 persons suggested it... -- Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't find the image exciting or special on its own, disregarding the situation in history. I don't see this fit as a FP. Obscured workers, boring lighting, reflections on the visors. – LucasT 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support since I'm one of the two people who yapped about it below. I do very much like the contrast between the bland tones of the lab and the bright yellow and hot pink of the hats and masks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I supported the other one because the people are shown in the midst of visible damage. This could be any control room anywhere. lNeverCry 23:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While the other pic show the people in context, this one is just an almost amusing not too good photo of people in colorful protective gear. That sort of counteracts the seriousness of the situation. Judging this as any photo of folks in a control room, it is a bad composition with a partial pink blob and yellow helmet on one side and the rest of the image cropped at random. --cart-Talk 23:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Might be a significant picture, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree the magenta blob on the bottom right is unfortunate, but cropping that out would lose the guy on the right. Wrt "This could be any control room anywhere", well there aren't many control rooms in the world where you need to wear full body protective gear and an IAEA badge. So I think this could easily well illustrate any article written about the accident. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That seems like a good argument for some kind of VI (not sure what the precise scope would be). Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Archon apollinus - False apollo, Adana 2017-02-11 01-3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 08:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - They look like great details to me, but you're an expert on butterflies and butterfly photography and I'm not. Zeynel, do you have a comment about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support While I'm not an expert on butterflies, I think the delicate composition and colors are exquisite. --cart-Talk 13:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support And 7... --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely neutral tones. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wrong color temperature; These are not these natural colors. Easy to correct --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2017 -- 6389.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 19:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not sure, but let's try it. It's just a detail of the sculpture, glass with air bubbles and Water droplets. -- XRay talk 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, I like this piece of abstract photography. --cart-Talk 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. Sadly I have no hard arguments against this, but my main thoughts were: 0. it doesn't speak to me as being a special photo on its own 1. It falls short on the value aspect (being a crop of a larger thing), 2. same with wow, 3. There is no clear composition, it looks just randomly cropped (to be fair, there can be thought put into it, it's just hard to show), 4. IMO it would be weird to feature a small part of a sculpture if there could be done much more with that sculpure put in the frame as a whole. – LucasT 20:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but I'm missing the sculpture. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not clear subject --Ezarateesteban 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support To my eyes it is an artistic image. And I do appreciate this kind of photos quite a lot. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Johann and Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't find it artistic. Charles (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid it isn't doing anything for me. The sculpture as a whole is interesting art already. I like this crop, though the top right is weak. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Were it not for that joint running through the middle, I would probably have joined cart in supporting it for its pleasant, ambient, abstract qualities à la a Cocteau Twins album cover. But that thick curved line ruins the abstraction for me. Daniel Case (talk)
  •   Oppose I don't find it artistic. --Karelj (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:IAEA Experts at Fukushima (02813336).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 18:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created by Greg Webb / IAEA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There is certainly no time to pose, so quite good quality. High educational value, showing the working conditions, and the environment with the damaged building in the background. Please notice that this image is used in many places on the Internet. -- Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. Very good picture under very adverse and historically significant circumstances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This one has some bonus for ER. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you mean "EV" as in Educational Value, "ER" usually means something else even if such facilities certainly were involved in the accident. --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't think this is anything special. The composition, framing and posing are all weak, nor is it clear where they are. This photo from the set is far superior IMO, clearly showing a control room of some facility, and some seriously flurorescent air filters! -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. This to me looks like what a news outlet's photo editor would want from one of their photographers, but the conditions under which it was taken notwithstanding that does not make it an FP. If it were the iconic picture of the incident, yes maybe for historical value (it may be widely reproduced online, but this is the first time I've seen it) but since it isn't, I oppose. The one Colin points to is, indeed, better. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support KennyOMG (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. This is related to an important event, but it just shows the experts leaving - not at work. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 – LucasT 08:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Savanna hawk (Buteogallus meridionalis).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 17:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info These hawks would normally fly off when perched just 1.5m off the ground, but our car acted as a hide. It is about 60cm (24") tall. Created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I don't like the dull light much, but I do like the tough and good-looking hawk. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support here too. Good-looking bird but I'm not wild about the background colors or the light. --cart-Talk 10:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Usually the wow-y photos grow on me as I look at them again after voting. Unfortunately, this one has not done so, rather the opposite so I'm moving to   Neutral. Sorry. --cart-Talk 23:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dull lighting and a man-made perch. I'm not wowed by this. lNeverCry 23:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 photo call Egon Schiele Tod und Mädchen Valerie Pachner 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 15:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Tsui -- Tsui (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tsui (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great portrait. Yann (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, seeing this photo at QIC was how I first came to notice your very good portraits, but the light in this and several of the other photos from that event is a bit unfortunate. The shadow around her left eye looks like she's got a black eye, so in the end I chose two other portraits. --cart-Talk 15:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shot too wide, and her right arm is making me feel this is bodybuilding shot. Could be a stop lower.--Mile (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC) p.S. Crop ?
  •   Support Good, useful bodybuilding shot. --A.Savin 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart and Mile. lNeverCry 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart and Mile. If you needed to use the fast ISO to get this image I can understand, but do be aware that it's likely to come with a lot of noise and thus not make it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment on the discussion page, if anyone is interested. --Tsui (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this photo has character. And is this really noisy? If you look at the photo at full size, you can see the peach fuzz around her lips - that's a very high degree of closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you can see that detail on the face, but the bokeh is noisier than some of the other portraits from this event taken under the same conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the quality of the photo is certainly great, I totally agree about that. I think that if the photographer had been able to choose the light, it would have been just as good. Sadly some production company made that setting. --cart-Talk 10:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hackerbrücke Munich 2014 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 13:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info Picture from WLM 2015, c/u/n by me. — Julian H. 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportJulian H. 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Excellent picture, and I'm tempted to support it weakly at the moment, but it bugs me that the right crop cuts into a mast. I assume there's no way to add the remainder of the mast to the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There is a building that starts exactly at the current crop, in-between the tracks, unfortunately. Since that's basically black, it really ruins that edge. — Julian H. 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Julian, I uploaded a crop and nominated it as an alternative. I can't quite follow your explanation with the "ruined edge" and how you would feel about cropping. I can't see any problem with my crop (if you do, would you mind explaining it more?). Feel free to change my crop or remove the "Alternative" nomination below altogether if you have a better solution or you want to leave the image as it is. Sorry for creating the alternative without asking first, I really like the image. – LucasT 18:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative, cropped on the rightEdit

 

  •   Info Picture from WLM 2015, created by Julian Herzog, uploaded and nominated by LucasboschLucasboschT 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I cropped this on the right per Ikan Kekek's suggestion. I like it better this way, too. – LucasT 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, although I was about to suggest this crop myself to Julian, it would have been more polite to let him do the crop himself and suggest an alt. We had this mess of well-meaning alterations of photos a while back and it quickly turned into quite a mess with numerous alternatives in the end. Please be a bit patitent and make suggestion to the nominator instead. This said, I   Support such a crop, but it would have felt better if it had been made by Julian. --cart-Talk 18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • cart, I'm sorry for jumping into action as quickly, I agree I should have waited a bit. I have pinged Julian above about my crop and what he meant in his reply. – LucasT 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's fine, I do see the benefits of this version. I uploaded a file from the original over your upload to preserve the quality. — Julian H. 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--XRay talk 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportJulian H. 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support also fine! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment, editing thoughts. Julian, I see a line of orange pixels at the top that looks like it doesn't belong there, you can find them by looking at the top most pixels. Also, are these blurred white spots in the sky OOF stars? If not, maybe clone these out as well. – LucasT 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think I fixed those issues. The bright spots were probably flies lit by street lights, stars would have to be in focus. Not sure what was going on with the red line, it doesn't even show up in Lightroom, only in the export. — Julian H. 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Julian, I know you are concerned with quality: I have found visible JPG compression artifacts around roof antennas, see my note. – LucasT 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Those are not jpeg artifacts, that's just noise. Fixed though. — Julian H. 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin--Milseburg (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support this version. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Still not perfect, as the extreme right side is notably glary, but that's a small detail and the photo as a whole is quite good and deserves a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Better one. — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Cambridge skyline November 2016 panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2017 at 21:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very good, excelent light Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice panorama; I added it to the Cambridge article on the English Wikipedia. WClarke 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good Charles (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically on an outstandig high level, but the motif itself isn´t wowing me. It´s an ordinary American skyline--Milseburg (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, with apologies - I actually kind of agree with Milseburg, and that's why I hadn't voted yet: The dilemma is that this is a very high-quality panorama of what I find a pretty uninteresting scene. If only the more interesting, shorter buildings on the left side could be emphasized over the boring modern boxes in the center and right...And so, this is a notable achievement and a very useful picture, but I'm feeling it as a really good QI/VI, not an FP. However, I can understand perfectly why almost everyone is voting for a feature for this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI yes, for FP bridge is spoiling this shot. Should be more in or completely out. --Mile (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI certainly, and I appreciate your calling to our attention the lesser skylines of the Northeastern U.S. as you did with Jersey City. But this skyline, while it makes ample use of the evening light, goes for comprehensiveness at the expense of wow ... it takes care to show us the lower buildings of Harvard, but as a result leaves us feeling decidedly unbalanced when the taller buildings around MIT suddenly pop up on the right (Compare this)

    I can't blame you for trying as all those boxy modern buildings don't give you too much to work with, but this wasn't it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Brassica oleracea 2011 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2017 at 18:20:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment OH MY DOG Charles! I hope so much that you're kidding, a little respect please. The photos do not like? Ok ....but not discredit or scared publishers just because it is not to your taste. Especially educated people and adorable as George. I too often see jobs that are scary for me here, but I think already the rejection is quite disheartening for a person who should not be ridiculed. I'm sorry if I was rude but honestly I did not like this your Comment --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Mild support Beautiful in its way ... doesn't make me want to eat it any more than I already do (But at least it does make better soup than a rose!) Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles. IMHO the tone of Charles's oppose seems to be meant as a bit of friendly ribbing rather than disrespect. George is a real gentleman, so I doubt anything disagreeable was intended. lNeverCry 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Apologies to George if my comment was taken as rude. No disrespect. Exactly the opposite. In the UK, we only laugh with people we respect. Charles (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The structure sure is interesting and once you get rid of some of the white glare many of these vegetables often have, it becomes quite beautiful. I have a version in my dropbox if you are interested, George. --cart-Talk 11:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For my taste too harsh light and some missing wow, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Matthew Norman carriage clock with winding key.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 17:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Matthew Norman carriage clock with winding key. My shot. --Mile (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't like the centered composition, empty space on the left and the dark blue shapes in the background. A pure black BG would be much cleaner. – LucasT 17:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but per Lucas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. For something shiny like this you're not going to have 0% overexposure, but still this is too much, especially on the columns on the right. -- King of ♠ 21:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - If you get rid of the strange blue spots in the otherwise black background, I will reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Info Other option. --Mile (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - Not perfect, but seems good enough to me. What do you all think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think we are far too sensitive about "overexposed" parts in a pic sometimes. The very bright and dark parts in an image is what creates the mood/drama/mystery, without it you get clinical catalogue photos with little wow. --cart-Talk 11:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support cart, all true, i was telling that before. I wouldnt go into shot, probably King like, in any case. First what i like, then i can combine other whishes. That image, without "overexposed" parts would seems very "dead", unwow or whatever. --Mile (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - better this way. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Lietavský hrad-východná strana.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 07:39:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info created & uploaded by Volodka22 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Left side is very dark; the center is also a bit dark. Sub-optimal light conditions. lNeverCry 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Finally a picture with realistic lights! It does seem a bit heavy in the yellows, maybe try to reduce red/green a bit? KennyOMG (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nicely detailed but ... I don't know, I think the composition suffers as between the forest and the clouds the impressive structure gets lost. The dark patches noted by INC also don't help. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. – LucasT 18:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - I quite like the dramatic lighting of the ruined castle. However, I would like to delete about 1/4 of the leftmost part of the picture, which in my opinion detracts from the composition. I'll try to input a rough crop suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support But per Ikan --Llez (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice shot, but colour seems to me strange (Per Kenny). — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:מתחם אַוּגוּסְטֶה ויקטוֹריה.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 07:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks for alerting us to it Christian. I had to recalibrate my monitor to see it and now I can't unsee it. Hopefully it can be removed, right Tomer T? --cart-Talk 13:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I can see it even in the thumbnail on this page. As it would be embarrassing to have that in a featured photo, I will for the time being   Oppose on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The seat of war in the West Indies 1740.jpg}