Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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:Christmas table (Serbian cuisine).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 11:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Brooklyn Bridge August 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 08:40:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Maroon Bells (11678).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 00:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Les Aresquiers, Frontignan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 20:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ruden Pfarrkirche hl Maria Magdalena 18082015 6716.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 08:48:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Themar Kloster Veßra chapel P3RM1917.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 07:56:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pashupatinath Temple cremations on the Bagmati River.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 06:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Looks better, though still not wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Leaving the technical issues aside, the image is just too busy. Too many things—the lights, the buildings—are competing to try to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Little boy of Laos laughing.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 22:09:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I respect your opinion, Charles, though I don't share it. There are many FPs of children on Commons:Featured_pictures/People, including two of mine, and we have at least 10 beautiful portraits of children. Those are as interesting and useful than birds or monkeys on Commons IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please clarify: You never got the consent of the boy's parent or guardian? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This picture was shot in a public space. As far as I know, not consent is required for an action related to a picture of a person in a public space in Laos, like in China, see Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements. Only consent is necessary for a commercially use, and there is a Personality Rights template associated to this file, which may be helpful and clear enough as it is. Moreover, I always have the implicit consent of all the people taken in picture that I publish. I'm not a paparazzi. I respect all the people I shoot (even those who laugh and make me laugh because they laugh). This joyful smile was not extracted through money, threat, nor pressure. No, no, it really just comes from the heart. And IMHO parents should be more grateful than rancorous with such a valuable image of their child, all the more so as I nearly always make prints (professionaly made) offered to the family. But anyone here could process differently, I don't mind, that's not the matter. There are hundreds of FPs of people on Commons, see for example this File:Young_Ashaninka_girl_in_an_Apiwtxa_village,_Acre_state,_Brazil.jpg very close to my style, and I assume everybody here is acting like I act. Then, honestly, I don't really understand these insistent questions related to copyrighting aspects. Here this is the FP area, not the OTRS department. So the pictures should be judged for their technical and aesthetical characteristics only. Dealing with other concerns is just out of the subject, I think, and may negatively influence the present votes -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I accept your argument and   Support this good composition and sunny smile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because despite the light and the smile it's really just too static a portrait for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Light (catch light), smile and stains, are the three reasons for my FPC, but I'm not trying to make you think differently. Just saying. Thanks for the review -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, sorry. --A.Savin 09:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice portrait. I'm curious if there's context for the marker/mud on his forehead? Perhaps just the general sort of mess children make, though. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  00:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I think so. He was the youngest among 2 other boys (1), (2) and a girl (3), who seem to have had fun together with a blue marker and the fresh mud of the paddy fields. Though I was not there when this happened, and just found the result "creative". It inspires me the decorative marks some tribes enjoy to make on their face and parts of their body with natural products like colorful pigments -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice enough portrait of a boy, with nice light, but what is so remarkable? This isn't Facebook. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Southern plains grey langur (Semnopithecus dussumieri) female head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 21:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much chroma noise and the level of detail is insufficient for such a portrait image, IMO. --Peulle (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Face is sharp enough for me (love the chagrined expression) and I don't really see much in the way of chroma noise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reflections in his eyes. No forest, I'm afraid.--Ermell (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Forest. All natural and wild. 90 seconds earlier I photographed the same lady (see link) before asking my driver to reposition the jeep for a close up session. Charles (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It looked like a city skyline to me. He might be happier in the forest.--Ermell (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Wrecked car at Tuntorp, Brastad 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 21:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pied bushchat (Saxicola caprata bicolor) female.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 09:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Total Solar Eclipse 8-21-17.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 06:07:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info The total solar eclipse of August 2017, viewed from Wyoming, USA. Created and uploaded by Msadler13, nominated by Rhododendrites. — Rhododendrites talk |  06:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info Copying the file's description here, since it describes how the image was created: "Total solar eclipse image taken through Takahashi FS152 with a f6 focal reducer and a Canon 5D MarkIV, exposure bracketing was used in seven steps from 1/2 sec to 1/8000 sec. Image was processed in Photomatix 6 and Photoshop CC 2017."
  •   Support This was one of the winners of the Wiki Science Competition in the United States. (Disclosure: I was on the local jury, though do not have any connection to the files/uploaders). — Rhododendrites talk |  06:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Amazing photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support just wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've never seen pink flares before. Artificial colouring? Charles (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I am a bit curious about how they got the craters on the moon visible, I haven't seen that in an eclipse photo before, but I AGF for good equipment and knowhow with the exposure bracketing. Btw, this VI also has pink flares (NASA too and here), so maybe not so uncommon. --cart-Talk 09:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There's a hint of of those flares/prominences in the picture I took; in some of the other ones from that sequence you can see a bit more. They were there (although of course you couldn't see them with the unaided eye). Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, you can clearly see the pink tint in the area of the flares in Daniel's photo. I think that settles that the flares were not colored in an artificial way. --cart-Talk 15:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ok, found it! The pink thing is called the sun's Chromosphere and good ol' WP decribes it as only visible during a total eclipse. Also this. --cart-Talk 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks all. Yes they really are pink. Weird. Charles (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Maria Woerth Teixlbucht Sueduferstrasse 197 Villa Fichteneck NW-Ansicht 19042017 7776.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 03:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kifli made with spelt flour (Serbian cuisine).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 15:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
  •   Info Kifli made with spelt flour. My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It may not have that cozy homemade feeling, this is more like going to a very good restaurant or cafe and being served this. I wouldn't mind that at all. :) --cart-Talk 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good in thumb and even better at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Breakfast time. I am going to eat them all. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I wasn't keen on the white tablecloth initiially, but the food is very sharp and excellent DoF. Charles (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Kitchen garden on a Mekong bank.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 14:52:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Background is unsharp but ... it's a long way off and not the subject, which is sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition just isn't doing it for me. Everything interesting is off to the side. -- King of ♠ 06:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not remarkable. Composition has problems with subject in poor location and eye drawn to twig in middle of empty water. -- Colin (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Recology Lodal Garbage Truck 14425 in San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 02:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I've uploaded it. Feel free to add it as an alternate to this nomination. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with "antiseptic" images for a project that's about encyclopedic images. dllu (t,c) 06:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't think FPC is about encyclopedic images; that's more VIC's brief. But how do I add an alt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose I wish the FP project was about encyclopaedic images, but it isn't. I'm not in favour of artifical backgrounds for this sort of image. Charles (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  Comment FP is not only about "high artistic merit", but also about "high illustrative merit". What this image may lack in artistic merit, I hope it makes up for it in illustrative merit. Besides, COM:SCOPE says that Wikimedia Commons is about educational images, "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". To me, it is much more clear and informative to see the garbage truck that has been separated from its cluttered background. I can see this type of image being useful in educational media such as children's books and textbooks. dllu (t,c) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  Comment I'd put it like this: FP is (supposed to be) about images that make you go "wow!" in some kind of way. Where that "wow" comes from doesn't really matter, and there are many different ways of evoking it. It can come from the subject (like something very old or rare), technical execution (like an incredibly well done macro shot of a boring object), artistic merit or a combination of these factors. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info I'm not sure about the background yet in terms of FPC. But in any case I think it would make an excellent VIC, so I've gone ahead and nominated it there (→ nomination subpage). --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm normally not a huge fan of background replacements at FPC, but I think in this case it not only works but also raises the bar for similar works to come. The masking is very well done even when pixel-peeping, and so is the artificial shadow beneath the truck. The flat lighting that makes the original photograph a bit boring-looking is perfect for this almost drawing-like illustrative image. And finally, yes, I am actually "wow"-ed by this transformation of a meh photograph into a very educative illustration. --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I spent 2 hours removing the background, paying particular attention to the glass windows and the numerous "holes" in the middle of the truck. dllu (t,c) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support More or less per El Grafo. I also like that looking at it at thumb, I get the toy truck feeling. --cart-Talk 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral For some reason, I prefer the composition on the original, where the truck lies along the abscissa and the verticals are slanted. Not a huge fan of the background replacement either. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of alt, per my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support - I prefer this because it gives the photo a sense of place, as this looks like Downtown San Francisco to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • PumpkinSky, Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, Charles, El Grafo, Yann, Ryan Hodnett, cart, Benh: At dllu's suggestion, I have put up an alt. I know some of you prefer the version on a white background, but it's only fair to ping everyone who voted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • weak   Support a common shot, byt I find it disorienting and interesting that this is levelled after the truck itself and not the context - Benh (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thanks for the ping. As pointed out above, I find this a bit meh over all and I don't like the tilt. --El Grafo (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nope, this has no wow at all for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 10:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Exactlly per the other opposers aabove. --Cayambe (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Seattle Great Wheel, Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 00:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Some guys have all the luck... ;) --cart-Talk 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Charles (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support +1 --El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good catch! :) Poco2 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent Work! --Gnosis (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Vista de Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 07-08 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 20:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info Cityscape of Seattle seen from after sunset from 701 on 5th Avenue. All by me, Poco2 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - A bit more noisy than the very best panorama pics, but I think that if this is the best quality you can get, it's sufficient, and the view is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like night cityscapes. Just curious: Since Ikan Kekek pointed out noise, why not drop the ISO from 320 to 100 to reduce noise and make the exposure time longer to accentuate the car trails? For what it's worth, I don't think the noise is a big deal at all. Other minor technical issues include: mountain ridges on the left have a halo above them, probably due to using the "clarity" or "detail" slider in Lightroom; the logos of the Hilton and Sheraton hotels on the bottom right appear doubled (reflections on glass, perhaps?) dllu (t,c) 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    dllu: That's what I would have probably done under normal conditions, using an ISO 100 but the shots from the oberservation deck until then had been blurry. As it was a bit windy I believe that the building kept moving, I didn't realize it but the camera did. That's why I shortened the exposure time. I have uploaded a new version adressing the other issues you mentioned Poco2 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Quite noisy and a bit blurry in the details. --Granada (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Was thinking the same as dllu (but it's an oppose, sorry ;) ). A bit dark for a 2018 night shot also. - Benh (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't think this is quite FP level in terms of detail retained. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2018 -- 0417.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Houtzagerij Sagi Tschiertschen 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects # Switserland Sawing machine, detail.
  •   Info Water-powered Sawmill, Sagi Tschiertschen. Built c 1920. sawing machine. Detail. The color and atmosphere of this photo evokes memory memories from the fifties of the last century. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - When I saw the thumbnail, I didn't expect to support this picture, but at full screen, it's a really good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lines intersecting with crop in just the right way makes it work very well. --cart-Talk 10:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Two other images of the same series of this sawmill are already featured. I see no need to have one more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent image. The other two images Uoaei1 refers to are of totally different parts of the sawmill. Saying this one can't be an FP is like saying "we have two FPs of different parts of this same French church, so we can't have another". I have no problem with this current FPC being an FP at all. It's an excellent image and deserves FP status. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. It isn't like "different parts of the same church". It's the same saw, just from different angles. So it is more like different views of the alter, taken on the same day with the same light and same processing. I also don't think it is fair-play to nominate in this way without declaring the previous noms. FP is about "finest", which includes choosing from one's own shots of the same object. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose One of those pics where I think the perspective (vanishing points) doesn't fit. And not sure what is so remarkable about it to start with. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan and Cart HalfGig talk 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Colin. The composition isn't bad but it is pretty typical and unremarkable. dllu (t,c) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:ReichstagSala.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Government of Germany [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by FEDARO - uploaded by FEDARO - nominated by FEDARO -- fedaro (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- fedaro (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Educationally valuable. Taivo (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted and suboptimal composition (e.g. bottom is cut off at a weird place). -- King of ♠ 18:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of, a very unbalanced composition which is not a pleasure to look to --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. You may find it interesting and perhaps useful to look at this Featured Picture of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Peterborough Cathedral Central Tower Ceiling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:08:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aftermath of January 2018 North American blizzard 14.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 15:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
  • Pyrus pyrifolia branches, Asian Pear, Shinko cultivar, in blizzard aftermath. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A very genuine composition with pastel colors. I do enjoy this image quite a lot. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Johann. In addition, the main branches are on the rule of thirds line and very sharp. This almost looks like it was taken looking up to the sky but I'm pretty sure it was taken looking into the fallen snow. HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Delicate, with what feels to me like a Japanese aesthetic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. What do we see in the background? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. I presume the background is a wall? Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice colors and the double textures make the image. Suggestion: I think I would crop just a sliver of the bottom to not get that last ice blob cut. Just the branch makes for a cleaner finish. See note. Or perhaps clone out the blob. --cart-Talk 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Johann Jaritz, HalfGig, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case: @W.carter: All, thanks for the supports! So that everyone knows, the background is not a wall. HalfGig was on the right track, it's fallen snow on the ground. These are the low branches on an Asian Pear tree. The camera was on a tripod and aimed downward at a sharp angle. Cart, I will look at your suggestions. PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I tried to clone it, but since the ice is also over the twig, it still looked weird. So I went with the small crop. I agree it looks better. Thanks! PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Cettarames (ship, 1980) cf06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 20:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2018 -- 0380.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 17:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Beautiful, excellent composition -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Balanced composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I thought that was a herd of deer at first, but I don't see the antlers. Are those goats? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately too much of the bottom is in shadow for me. -- King of ♠ 03:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit ordinary in my opinion - Benh (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but a bit too unsharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good nature shot, but there are so many of these on Commons that it would need something extra special to earn the title 'one of the best images on Commons'.--Peulle (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Snapshot. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Snapshot? Please explain. --XRay talk 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The WOW is surrounded by too much unextraordinary and poorly lit landscape. FP is about a great thumbnail first.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dobrota, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 11.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 13:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Montenegro
  •   Info View of the town of Dobrota, a location of about 8,000 inhabitants in the Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. All by me, Poco2 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dull lighting, and feels a bit too much like a holiday shot anyone would take, sorry. - Benh (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for your appreciation, once more, Benh (I talk about the comment, not about the vote) --Poco2 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not dull but misty, and very well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • See no mist here. But a picture is worth a thousand words... [1]. We're far from that here. - Benh (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are of course different degrees of mist. Most of the mist in this picture is not in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't know what you are talking about, but guess you refer to the low clouds. No. The light just renders uniform and dull on the subject itself. But anyways, we're mostly fighting about words. - Benh (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No fight here. Fog is just clouds on the surface. When it becomes no longer mist (=fog, IMO) is a judgment call. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very exciting; the light is not the best, there is no reflection in the water to help either.--Peulle (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    There is no reflexion? I'm speechless --Poco2 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe he talks about the "specular" bright reflections? - Benh (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, I mean that the relection is not good enough to provide any extra wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like light and reflections. IMO FP. Only a minor problem: The waste in the water, especially the green spot at the right. --XRay talk 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    XRay:   Done, thanks, Poco2 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I see lots of reflexion on the water surface. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle; it also seems a bit soft. I wonder how this would look in bright sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar de Pointe Oilletta in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Zaaddozen van alpenflora langs bergpad in dichte mist boven Lac du Joux (1930m) 08.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 05:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Chamerion angustifolium.
  •   Info Rain and mist give this plant in decline a new dimension. Plant photographed on a mountain slope above Lac du Joux (1930m) in Valle d'Aosta (Italy). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 14:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not keen on the busy background - Benh (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am not convinced, either. Detail is good, but lighting/background is not at FP level and the motif itself is not so wowing that compensates that. --Poco2 08:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Ely State Theater.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 08:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United States
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:McGhiever - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The only drawback I see to this photo is that it's pretty small for a new FP. However, it's pretty close to perfect to my eyes and in my opinion does justice to the clean lines of this classic Streamline Moderne movie theater. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome, and easily large enough for this kind of subject. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 13:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Strong support The third-place finisher in WLM USA 2017, an entry that I strongly supported all through the process as more technically accomplished than the top two. Glad to see it getting the respect it deserves here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like the side lighting - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I find the right side not perfectly vertical, but still acceptable -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The building is leaning in and the resolution low. --XRay talk 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per XRay, I expect more than 4 MP resolution for relatively easy to capture images. -- King of ♠ 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shadow on the right spoils it, and the building is obviously in a bad condition, thus no wow for me. Also per XRay and King --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Martinus Rørbye, Portræt af maleren C.A. Lorentzen, 1827, 0218NMK, Nivaagaards Malerisamling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 14:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Zámek Kačina (by Pudelek).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 12:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nyctanassa violacea in La Manzanilla.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 01:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose A little noisy all over. Was it darker than it looks (hence the high ISO)? Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Cloudy day... so the high ISO is because a) I want some depth of field, the birds are very jittery, and although I try to focus in the eye, they move, so it is at least f8. and b) Because I am shooting at anything that appears, some fast, some slow birds, I want to somewhat freeze action. So it is a compromise between quality and technical necessity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   regretful oppose I think the composition and focus are fine, and I like the bug flying over the bird's head, but the feathers just don't look natural. Perhaps too much noise reduction? PumpkinSky talk 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks pretty good to me, and I have an emotional response to the photo because I sympathize with the relaxed-looking bird who's about to be attacked by that mosquito. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ha ha, I was going to suggest to delete that mosquito, but Ikan's reading of the story gives a good reason to keep it :) So, for me it's a beautiful photo and I have no problem with a bit of noise mostly visible in the background (sure it would be better to correct it, though). More than 16 Mpix is quite a good resolution, and the head of the bird is sharp. There are enough interesting details in that image IMO and the composition is fine -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)