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:Image of Tholpavakoothu.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 02:18:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Apis mellifera - Cirsium arvense - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 13:44:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Parthenos sylvia-Kadavoor-2016-06-25-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 13:31:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks The Photographer. Yes; it is not something we are going to see everyday. I was in search for the rare damselflies in forest streams, after the rain. Stumbled by seeing this rare moment! He didn't care me much as he was busy collecting the minerals for the nuptial gift. :) Jee 16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I was a little surprised the article about the nuptial gift did not include the chocolate and flowers male humans use to seduce us females with. Encyclopedic error... --w.carter-Talk 20:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Jee 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Je ne peux pas imaginer combien d'heures vous avez passéz là à essayer de prendre cette photo. Il est tout simplement magistrale dans la qualité et la netteté, peut-être juste un peu sous-exposée. --The Photographer (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Both of us are inside the narrow forest stream, covered by foliage. So little lights there. I'm still learning the correct flash settings. Jee 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fantastic! -- w.carter-Talk 14:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support One of the best butterfly pictures we've had here in a long time. I love the background, too ... at first I wondered why the insect was so interested in this bean dip. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support excellent! Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I actually said "Wow!" out loud when coming to this thumbnail. Fantastic picture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Fantastic! --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --A.Savin 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:La Jolla Cove cliff diving - 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 12:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info created by Jarekt - uploaded by Jarekt - nominated by Jarekt -- Jarekt (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jarekt (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice and something different from our usual candidates. Anyways it would be nice if you could add {{retouched}} or {{panorama}} templates to give some information about how you created this beautiful picture. The cut rock in the lower left part of the picture could be cloned out IMO. --Code (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done I removed the rock and added some explanation of the creation process. --Jarekt (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Very good work. --Code (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice! And I agree with Code's comment about the rock. w.carter-Talk 14:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Bravo! Next best thing to a video. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I would have kept the rock in the picture, as I think it improves the composition, but either way, it's a very pretty picture. Are the dots in the air toward the upper left balloons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The "dots" in the air in upper left corners are around en:Torrey Pines Gliderport. --Jarekt (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, that's quite a beautiful photo, too, and I'd support it for FP if it's nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Love the idea (and execution) - Benh (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment What about a crop at left ? I feel the composition a bit unbalanced.--Jebulon (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - If it's unbalanced, removing the rock in the lower left corner is what made it unbalanced, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gold rim swallowtail (Battus polydamas jamaicensis) underside worn 2.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 12:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Regretful oppose A great job on the detail and color of the subject lifeform, as usual. But the branches and twigs in the background are too distracting for me to consider it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - The butterfly is beautiful and well-photographed, and I think the various twigs help the overall composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd have to agree with Ikan here. w.carter-Talk 20:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Sun Glint over Atlantic Ocean.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 11:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I added the most obvious one. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Crop error (note added). --Ivar (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at the original pic it looks like this is a composite from several shots, maybe this should be mentioned on the file's page. I would not have minded if the left part with the solar panel had been left in since it gave a new dimention to the pic, like you were on the spaceship yourself. But either version is fine by me. w.carter-Talk 15:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Of course it's a beautiful photo, though I prefer the original. However, if you've decided to crop out everything but the Earth and space beyond, I would suggest for you to crop a little further, so that the remaining dark area noted by Ivar as a "crop error" is also cropped out. When you do that, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pretty glaring stitching error on the left, breaking the circle "continuity" (?). Not the most impressive view of earth to me, even though the sun specular reflection is a nice effect. - Benh (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same feeling as Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vista de Quito desde El Panecillo, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 25-29 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 21:00:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •  Info View of Quito, capital of Ecuador, from El Panecillo. The city population is about 1,620,000 inhabitants and due to the orography of the region the city has a particular longish form. All by me, Poco2 21:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 21:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 00:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Would have liked sunny weather, I guess, but given that this is pretty damn good. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do want to support this, but shouldn't you state that this is a stitched or panned panorama? Charles (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    I have added a template Charles, additionally I always state this kind of information in the file name. 25-29 PAN means that the frames 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 have been stitched to a panorama. Poco2 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment A geo tag would also be nice. :) --w.carter-Talk 12:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    W.carter:  added Poco2 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment too bright! Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with Christian. Also there is one blurry stitching line (note added) and foreground saturation level looks too high for me. --Ivar (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    Christian, Ivar: I've reduced the brightness and also a bit of saturation. It took me a while to identify a "blurry stitching line", I rather found some spots where sharpness was not as good as other areas, I sharpened them. Poco2 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support light is better, always some less sharp areas in the middle but acceptable for me Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Moderate support Definitely an improvement, but still not perfect (stitched frames are not equally sharp). --Ivar (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 03:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Jane Addams - Bain News Service.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 17:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lech - Warth - Schutzhütte 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 15:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the tight composition works here. I'd like to see more of the cabin and more of the valley and mountains. INeverCry 20:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, nice and a good QI, but I don't see any special for a FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the juxtaposition of near and far, with the gabled roof of the hut in the former echoing the peak in the latter. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment too square for a landscape for me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Oca do Brasil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 15:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Brazil
  •  Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Mild support Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support - Can the haziness be reduced a bit and still be true to life? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral @The Photographer: Muita boa qualidade, contudo, qual é a localização e porque ela não consta na descrição? Oca do Brasil é um título muito genérico. É contestável que esta oca pertença a tribo Camaiurá (parece que você apenas copiou as categorias desta imagem). Sinto muito Wilfredo, mas assim não tem como atribuir valor suficiente. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
no Zoo de São Paulo --The Photographer (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Panteon de Emilio Bacardi y Moreau.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 13:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Thira (Santorini) - Fira-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 07:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:White Orange and Gray Tabby Cat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 23:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •  Info created by Fabricio Trujillo - uploaded and nominated by 1989 -- 1989 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- 1989 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Cute cat, but too unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, too unsharp, painted areas of the blanket are disturbing IMO. I don't like the DoF (F:4,5)--Lmbuga (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice but not sharp. It's a pity. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough and very noisy. Lovely cat, though. --Cayambe (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry and noisy for any "awwwww" factor to overcome. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Vitoria - Knitted graffiti 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 20:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Spain
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It was a bit unfortunate that you found such a rather poor example of yarn bombing, had the work itself been better this picture could have worked. As it is it looks like a rather sad example of this guerilla art form. For an FP on the subject I'd like something more substantial like this or this. I also think the angle should have been such that there was some space between the rest of the bollards, now they are more or less one clump. Sorry. --w.carter-Talk 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, more or less per W.carter. The composition is O.K. and probably good, but doesn't strike me as outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 00:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A QI perhaps but too ordinary for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the review and your opinions. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Basotxerri (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini (Rome) - Dome.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 13:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Support - In this case, a Google image search shows other photos of this cupola that are comparable with the colors in this picture. I'm not sure all the colors or saturation are ideal (some parts seem a bit washed out to my eyes), but I accept that this is probably what they look like, and I like the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • They are not wash, but ruined. Hovewer thanks.--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood completely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely done! --w.carter-Talk 23:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely done!--Lmbuga (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Nasir al- mulk mosque, Shiraz.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 13:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •  Info created by Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji - uploaded by Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji - nominated by Mhhossein -- Mhhossein talk 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mhhossein talk 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbazri (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks really great, but roughly 2Mpixels resolution is not sufficient for an FP --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WOW these colors, what a beautiful mosque! Unfortunately, the photographic rendition is not as good as it could be - I would name resolution, noise and detail rendition. I would so much look forward to have a HQ pic of this mosque and to vote for it in a heartbeat. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    Hendric Stattmann will not take long :) Poco2 16:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Please take a higher-resolution picture of this beautiful mosque. I would suggest for you to submit it to COM:QIC first for feedback on technical matters. If it passes there, submit it here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per everyone else. Great start but this could be higher-res. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment how sad it's so small and a bit overprocessed (saturation mainly)... the subject and composition are gorgeous (and truly a potential POTY) - Benh (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I agree with this. I really look forward to another attempt to capture the beauty of this mosque. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Leopard-digitalART.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 10:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mallnitz Tauerntal Tauscherböden 20160807.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 06:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
  •  Info Alpine pasture Tauscherböden in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, Carinthia. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really great resolution. I did not find any stitching errors. I only notice a slight haze, which is probably unavoidable at this distance. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I enjoy exploring this panorama at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support w.carter-Talk 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 09:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Another one from the department of pictures I wish I had taken. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very good. Charles (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Cute--Lmbuga (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 03:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Stramberk castle - View from Kotouc.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 10:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Question - What, in your opinion, is wrong with centering? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The tower in the center with the trees hiding the Stramberk castle and houses make a center unbalanced composition, there aren't a main indentificable subject. I invite you to read Balance in Photography --The Photographer (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll have a look, but I consider the identifiable subject to be the landscape itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this the issue you have with the near-symmetry of this picture? "The main issue with symmetry is that most scenes do not have two identical halves." The thing is, I don't see the tower as being dead center, anyway - it seems a bit to the right to me. And I don't think there's been an attempt at symmetry, as there is more greenery on the left. Also, there had been a bit more to the right, but I requested a crop because a construction site was overly distracting to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I agree that in terms of balance, it would be helpful to place the tower slightly more off-center. Unfortunately, the way the buildings are set, an off-center composition does not work, so I had to stick with the composition as it is. I think it is still pleasant and gives an accurate representation of the tower and its surroundings. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Stift Melk Gartenpavillon 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 06:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Austria
  •  Info Garden Pavilion in the park of Melk Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't find any technical deficiencies (no visible noise, no CA, no sharpening artifacts, no blown out areas, no perspective distortion, sharpness almost everywhere...). I like the composition and the good light that day brings out the colors nicely. Great shot! --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Those animal cutouts are so strange! But I digress...I greatly enjoy this restful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 10:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is a bit too stale for me; taking it later in the afternoon would improve the picture. Also the crop on the sides of the fountain is rather tight. --King of ♠ 00:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good picture, I'm not agree with "King of Hearts", but wav?, Why?--Lmbuga (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 00:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:MonumentoEcuestreaSanMartin-MDP-ago2016 alt 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 00:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The image has a previous nomination

  •  Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Again. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Again. And in my opinion, it's not a problem that the interesting tree takes away attention from the monument, because the monument is not the subject of this picture. Instead, this is a picture of the monument and the tree, and in my strong opinion, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with a picture having a dual subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Hopefully we don't get two more alternates... INeverCry 06:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. Charles (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad shadow side ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and strong sharpness IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment You could try the same image with a sunset sunrise on background, if it is posible of course --The Photographer (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    I suppose that would be sunrise since Mar del Plata and Argentina are on the east coast of South America. ;) w.carter-Talk 16:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I go to stay here until get the FP (or the FP´s, one with trees and another without trees) :) Ezarateesteban 16:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Mannheim - Planetarium.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 17:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I think planetarium buildings are interessting in their shape and therefore not common or ordinary. The building is centered, like 95% of all building images are, also FP-building-images. The light is strong, the sky is blue, no rubbish, just a good and concise shot. If I compare this image to all other images this photo persuades with it's simplicity. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak support I find myself wondering if the image would be more pleasing if you'd moved a little to the left to take advantage of the symmetry? Regardless, this is an interesting building and a high quality photograph. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per INC. Adding a bit for the benefit of Alchemist-hp: Some buildings are interesting enough to look good in a straight forward centered photo, this is not one of them. This building needs more shadow/light interaction to make it "come alive" and be interesting enough for an FP. Since the main part of it is almost the same hue as the clear sky it doesn't stand out that much. Imagine if there had been some linear cirrus clouds behind it, that would have been effectful. Or perhaps reshoot it in autumn and get the yellow leaves to complement the blue roof. It is a very good QI/VI but it lacks the wow of an FP. w.carter-Talk 03:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I have no problem with the positioning of the planetarium, but with no clouds or significant chromatic variation in the sky, it just sits there and detracts from an otherwise very good photo that could have been featurable in my opinion. I'd like to see a similar photo with interesting clouds and/or during sunrise or sunset. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sure, a few clouds in the blue sky would be nice, but a part from that there is nothing to object about this picture. Remarkable sharpness without sharpening artifacts. Nice colors and lighting. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • of course  Support, because absolutely incomprehensible opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I think we are here more and more in a photocommunity, no real votings here?!? My opinion!
    • @Alchemist-hp: I don't understand the meaning of this post scriptum...--Jebulon (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Jebulon:: and I don't understand the other (o)votings here ... Now we have both a problem!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @Alchemist-hp: Sorry, I did not vote for now. I understand your support vote, and that you are angry against "o" votes, but I really don't understand this :"I think we are here more and more in a photocommunity, no real votings here?!?" What do you mean by this ?--Jebulon (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I guess he means that the voting behaviour is more than the tase of a photocommunity and disregards the encyplopedic value of an image. Indeed we already have a forum for valued images but nevertheless we shouldn't forget that this image pool is primarily for the encyploedia and not other purposes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
            • I had the same point of view when I came here but have since learned that FPs need to be both encyclopedic and visually stunning, with an ephasis on 'stunning'. Perhaps we should have a new project for pictures that are simply fantastic from an encyclopedic point of view, Perfect Pictures or something. ;) I'm only joking, but the thought has crossed my mind, I know I could contribute with plenty to that. For now those pics goes into the QI section. --w.carter-Talk 11:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
              • I use thumbnails of Commons photos on Wikivoyage, a travel guide, not Wikipedia. Moreover, each Wikipedia has the power to select a picture that's of great encyclopedic value but insufficiently good quality or composition to be a Featured Picture on their site. I think most of us do take educational and encyclopedic value into account in our voting, but for many of us, neither of those are our primary criteria, but rather, criteria that can make the difference between support and oppose votes in more or less close cases or in the cases of extremely unusual subjects, sometimes it may override a lot of reasons for opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, QI, but nothing special IMO. It is a well presented building--Lmbuga (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:National Library of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 11:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info National Library of Australia, Canberra. 16-image Panorama. I've spent hours fixing as many stitching errors as I could find; let me know if you find more.
  •  Info Created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent. Could you please give some information about the panorama? How many single frames did you take? Did you use a panorama head? --Code (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Code I didn't use a pano head (hence all the stitching errors). It's 15 single frames: I've added that info to the description. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done I've fixed the noted errors -- Thennicke (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but still no. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC) P.S: I ask me: why do you use a stitching, if you can do the same work as a single shoot without errors?
  • @Alchemist-hp: Reason 1 is that I can't take this in a single shoot without errors. I don't own a 24mm tilt-shift lens, which I would need to do that. Reason 2 is resolution. My camera is limited to 20MPx. I wanted to create the highest-resolution image of this building that I could, for Wikimedia's sake.
Is your opposition due to there still being stitching errors? If so could you point them out please? -- Thennicke (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:A U.S. Navy Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class Robert Frey fabricates a steel countertop aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Aug. 20, 2013, while underway in the Gulf of Oman 130820-N-JC752-778.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  •  Info created by US Navy / MCSN Kole E. Carpenter - rotated by Pine - uploaded by - nominated by Pine -- Pine 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Pine 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sparkly! I wish I could prowl around a carrier for a month or so with my camera, so much activity and hardware to shoot... >(sigh)< --w.carter-Talk 08:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support strange... colors and less than perfect sharpness resemble 1940s film photography in a way. Could be a picture taken during WW2 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think the sparks are the main thing that make this picture an interesting enough composition for me to want to feature it, but the positions of the electrician and various objects also help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - cool shot! Atsme 📞 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The man seems a bit scrunched up in such a vertical composition. Other than that, a photo of a man doing a common job like welding isn't wowing for me. INeverCry 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per INC. You want cool sparks in a welding picture, cool enough to be an FP? Then compare the nominated image with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Awsome example, but I'm enjoying the Norman Rockwell feel this pic has, the hunched concentrated position, goggles (instead if face shield), baggy pants (yes, used by welders to prevent burns) has a dated look to them, the shoes (steel capped toes gives a dated look), not to mention the light and color, very 1940s just like Martin said. w.carter-Talk 21:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Nice. Interesting. Clear FP IMO, sorry --Lmbuga (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • And very nice and usefull. Very good composition--Lmbuga (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pine -- Pine 04:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Pine 04:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 08:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support More pictures from Vatican City. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the detail and symmetry. The shadow at the bottom is annoying. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Atsme 📞 20:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm slightly disturbed by the dark shadow in the lower left corner but this is a great picture overall. --King of ♠ 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is spoiled by the asymmetry of the foreground - can it be corrected? See annotation. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It could be corrected, but I'm not sure if it's needed. I can't be sure but I think it might not actually be perfectly symmetrical in reality. Also, as the image is downsampled (unfortunately, I wasn't thinking forward at that time), any adjustment to the perspective will probably make it a bit less sharp. Diliff (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 22:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♠ 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak Pro I like the light situation. A nice capture although I think it needs a little bit more contrast. The crop bus station in the foreground isn't that fortunate as well. --Code (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe a tiny bit oversaturated --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree with Code on the bus stop. The light is very nice though. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good photo, interesting light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Building is just striking enough at this angle and in this light to offset the potentially distracting detail below. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nothing special. It's a bit saturated IMO. Contrast? Why FP, sorry? Is it FP because the hour of he take the picture? Sorry, What special? --Lmbuga (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 21:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •  Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the dark shadow. Whatever's behind his head, maybe an oval-shaped rock (darker than the rest of the shadow), is an added distraction, as it almost looks like it's connected to his head. INeverCry 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fair enough, but the harsh shadow is intended to add menace. Your 'rock' is one of its legs. Please remember that this is not a zoo picture and he was not particularly happy that I was kneeling down pointing a large camera lens at him Charles (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know if you really need to add much menace to a huge dangerous lizard, but good for you for having the guts to get in close... INeverCry 00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Strong support "Here he is ...Your komodoooo DRAAAA-gon". Although I agree that there's more of that shadow at the right than there needs to be ... perhaps you could get rid of that part with the bit of sun? Tightening the image so that the beast fills more of the frame would IMO go further toward your goal (already partially accomplished) of making it more menacing, leaving the viewer with only this small stretch of darkness to seek refuge in. Amazing coincidence ... I went out to get more whole-bean coffee at Starbucks, and because of this picture I picked Komodo Dragon Blend. And now that you've made him look even more badass, we can sing: "Mr. Ko Mo Do DraaaaaaGON ... Got to keep on draggin'" Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: See note. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Cropped version uploaded... Charles (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
My support upgraded to strong. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Much more striking now that it's been cropped -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Thennicke and thanks to Daniel. OMG what a creature! Is this how you train for your pet photography? w.carter-Talk 03:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
After the photoshoot I asked him if he minded being called a cold-blooded killer. 'Not at all', he replied. 'I am a reptile after all.' Charles (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
--w.carter-Talk 08:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support, and I hope you were far away from the lizard, as I wouldn't want you to become a statistic! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really impressive. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Healey Silverstone (17.06.2007).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 20:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Myurella nebulosa 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:PL-PK Mielec, rzeźba Miotacz (Henryk Burzec) 2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •  Info created and uploaded by User:Kroton - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I just really like the gesture the sculpture is making, and I think this photograph captures the sense of motion in this actually static work of art well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like the pose too, and the detail is great. But that may be its undoing. It looks like, in the pursuit of that excellence, the image might have been oversharpened (look at that bit of the white truck in the background for something a bit too processed). The WB also seems a bit too cool, even given the predominant colors. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I do see a bit of seeming oversharpening, now that you point it out. I think it's slight, though. Very small areas of the picture may be posterized. User:Kroton, would you like to make some edits based on Daniel's points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful  Oppose Pose, light and detail are fine but I find the cars disturbing, especially having a bright green between its legs. I also keep wondering what the statue's feet look like but maybe the hedge is unavoidable. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 03:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand your objections. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:La Roque, Salagou Lake 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you, hdr simulation from one RAW file, the less sharp areas were the most shadowed areas Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
oh no I know from where it come from, I try currently the DXO software free version and a bokeh simulation is activate by default, I will upload a sharper version...let me a few minutes Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Alchemist-hp, I uploaded a version without these setting, that should be better Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Now  Support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 19:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support An excellent example of how to make this sort of scene beautiful in autumn. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support while maybe less wow than I would like, it's a nice atmospheric landscape photo with an impressive level of detail. --Pine 04:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 00:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Cithaerias Esmeralda MHNT.ZOO.2004.0.976 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not remember all the butterflies I had the pleasure of photographing. But it remained in my memory. It's always difficult to photograph transparency. After several tests monochrome backgrounds; has a foam pad that I use support that gave the best result. But mostly I have had the pleasure of seeing a living, it's a real aesthetic shock. Thanks Christian Ferrer...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - nice! --Atsme 📞 19:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sublimely beautiful ... the kind of butterfly that inspires fine lingerie. Which brings me to think, Nabokov would be proud. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Another fine specimen from Projet Phoebus! -- Thennicke (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting! Jee 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Globen metro station May 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 07:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Elsie Leslie (1899) by Zaida Ben-Yusuf.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 04:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Võilille seemnis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 23:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
  •  Info created and uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would prefer much more depth of field (F3.8 used). Charles (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the depth of field. Helps the viewer focus on the essentials. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shallow DOF is good when the subject is perfectly aligned. Not here. Jee 02:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Depth of field is just a bit too shallow, making almost everything unsharp at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Once again: art meeting nature!--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the shallow DoF here is pleasing and gives a sort of soft 'halo' to the pic. w.carter-Talk 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF to low. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Personally I like the DOF. I don't see how you'd do otherwise for such a small object without focus-stacking -- Thennicke (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jee, Ikan and Alchemist. I can understand a DoF that leaves the spores blurry. But it should have all of the kernel in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Trachycephalus mesophaeus Albine.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 20:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

What's a false focus? and please add CA note to fix it --The Photographer (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The peak of the nose is sharp, not the head + eye. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the notes, CA now is fixed --The Photographer (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp area at right is a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the CA and now some areas look more sharpening, please, let me know if it is ok --The Photographer (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 03:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Acherontia-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I just tested a downsized version. Hope noise is acceptable in that size? Better? Jee 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better leave it, as it is. This specimen is better at full resolution. --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment marked improvement IMO, I wanted to talk to you about this software, I see you did not wait me :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I agree that this change produced a marked improvement. I wish the caterpillar were a bit sharper still, but I think it's quite sharp and detailed enough to be both fascinating and of great educational/encyclopedic value. As others have said, it's amazing to look at, and the composition is pretty good, too. In this version, I definitely think this deserves a rotation on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Pihtsusköngäs canyon in winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info all by Grtek -- Grtek (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Grtek (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment A very nice mystery picture were it is hard to tell the scale until you see the two skiers. Some blown parts on the ice and quite a lot of CA (purple + green) in many places. This should have been pointed out at QIC and fixed before this. Please fix the CAs at least. --w.carter-Talk 14:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA fixed, thanks--Grtek (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Great! And  Support --w.carter-Talk 09:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wonderful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Just the sort of picture I like on a warm and humid late-summer day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think the lighting is helpful nor the position of the skiers. Charles (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Very sadly the most bottom part of the picture is in a strong shadow. Otherwise very worth seeing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Wladyslaw. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Croatia BW 2014-10-10 12-41-09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 11:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice perspective and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A house hidden by a tree, an ordinary walkway, and an almost purple sky. I'm not wowed by this. INeverCry 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Like INC... Yann (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very nice but I think the top third adds nothing to the composition. I've suggested a crop. --King of ♠ 00:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry Berthold, but not enough for a FP in my opinion. Missing somthing special. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Francis Fukuyama at Fronteiras do Pensamento São Paulo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 00:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info Fixed background distracting and microphone --The Photographer (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - like magic? At what point do edits become lies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I try to recreate the Francisco Fukuyama chin based on other pictures of him, however, this was a mental base and not real. We are changing here the main subject (Francisco) and it's a good question and I invite you to see the history of this FP --The Photographer (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I really do admire your photoshop capabilities! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sir :D --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry? This is one of the worst photoshoppings I have seen within months. Collar and background extremely pixelated, and the cloning on the chin is too obvious to be trustworthy. --Kreuzschnabel 10:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Pixelation on background is gone now --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Then you haven't seen any really bad photoshopping in the past months... ;-) But ok, at 100% the result is less convincing - which was to be expected. And please note that I didn't even support the edited alternative. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And another alternate. Pretty soon every nomination will have an alternate by The Photographer... INeverCry 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with INeverCry. The Photographer is good with the photoshoping and is apparently only trying to be helpful, but as I said before this is becoming a bit too much. w.carter-Talk 08:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, Understood, I'll stop doing this kind of photoshoping and yes I think this was too far --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:CoA Catherine de' Medici Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 15:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •  Info Book created by the Master of the Petrarch Triumphs - found, uploaded, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Something different today, from the french national online library. Here we have a (restored by me) manuscript illumination featuring the coats of arms of dowager queen Catherine de'Medici, widow of king Henry II of France. This was included ca.1560CE in a ca.1500 CE illuminated prayer book manuscript called Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne. One can see that they are CoA of a widow due to the Ordre de la Cordelière around the escutcheon. This chivalric order was created after the death of her husband king Louis XII of France by queen Anne of Brittany, for widow noble women. You have at left (dextre in french heraldry) the CoA of kings of France, and at right (senestre, yes, it is inversed) the CoA of Catherine, showing her descent (Boulogne, Medici, Tour d'Auvergne). During her life, she was Queen Consort, and a very powerful Queen Mother of the three last kings ( brothers Francis II of France, Charles IX of France and Henry III of France) of the House of Valois of the Capetian dynasty. Her death marks the end of the french Renaissance. The original version of this image is available as first upload for comparison, as I usually do.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Might be QI but I see nothing outstanding here. Edges aren’t straight. --Kreuzschnabel 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Something wrong with your breakfast ? --Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • What’s breakfast? --Kreuzschnabel 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • No matter, just a joke: as you opposed with the same words two completely different pictures, I thought you were angry, maybe due to the fact that someone had stollen a part of your breakfast, or something. Please don't care, that's a french kind of reaction.--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The French and their food... --w.carter-Talk 21:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Stop trolling Kreuzschnabel, he has the right to eat his food cold like a vendeta. Bon apetite --The Photographer (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As far as I can see, this is an excellent rendition of an old illumination. Most likely made on handmade paper (no straight sides, vellum usually have cut sides) in an age when rulers and set-squares were optional. Colors are consistent with those of the era and so is the gilding. Granted, it's been some years since I studied such manuscripts at the British Museum, but from what I recall this seems ok. Nice to see something unusual like this here. :) w.carter-Talk 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per W. carter. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Градбата на Саат Кулата во Неготино 1.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 12:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •  Info created by Cibrev - uploaded by Cibrev - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess this photo in landscape orientation is better. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the landscape orientation would work better as the image depicts a wall of this tower.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • And what exactly is your reason? Your image is just a detail view of the wall structure and not the tower itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I want to say that, given that it's a wall of a tower with relatively short sides compared to other buildings, a landscape photograph from the same distance will capture the surrounding area of the tower that may spoil the composition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 21:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 01:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good QI, but not outstanding for me. portrait orientation is not suitable for me too --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think a bit of tower is FP and it's not very sharp. Charles (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't really get what people are liking so much about this composition. This tower might look good in context (depending on light conditions, et al.), but this crop of one side of it feels random to me, as does the resulting composition. I really wouldn't understand a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not special enough for FP. --Code (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a wall ... hm, not enough for an FP in my opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's missing "wow" factor. Atsme 📞 19:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for me this lacks wow. Sorry. --Pine 04:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lyriothemis acigastra-Kadavoor-2016-06-26-001.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 23:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •  Info created by Till Niermann - uploaded by Till Niermann - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- w.carter-Talk 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, simply amazing and I can feel the geometric art here --The Photographer (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per The Photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice view, interesting light conditions. But it looks a bit to dark and underexposed for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Very interesting composition but a bit too dark -- Spurzem (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Upped the light a little bit per requests and cloned out the partial bird/UFO while I was at it. If Till Niermann don't agree with this, then I apologize and you can of course reverse it. The change was so very little that I did not see the need for a new version. We already have one alt version, no need for three since the change was suggested by two editor and I agree with it. If I was wrong in doing so, please let me know. w.carter-Talk 11:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Info Thanks for optimizing, I'm far from opposing the enhancements. --Till (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • That was reassuring, thanks for letting me know. If you want to vote for your own picture, you can do so if you like. w.carter-Talk 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark. --King of ♠ 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great composition! The editor of a photo calendar would probably prefer the de-molehilled version below, but the more I think about it the more I like this version, as they somehow break the otherwise strictly geometrical patterns in the image. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Also kind of reminds me of "Der Maulwurf Grabowski": a picture book I had when I was a child, telling the story of a mole who has to find a new place to live because people are turning his meadow into a construction site …
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great use of abstraction -- Thennicke (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark, as King of hearts. Oversaturated IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Just FYI, the saturation was never touched. --Till (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

  •  Info Fixed black UFO, sharpening problems, noise and severals distracting objects like irregular lawn. --The Photographer (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - The only difference I see is that clods of dirt on the grass were cloned out, but those don't bother me. I won't oppose this, though; it's fine, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support move to  Neutral on this for less confusion now that the UFO is gone on the first. - Thanks for fixing the UFO (or part of bird top center on the other pic) and the noise. The lawn did not bother me in the original version, looks like they have a problem with some rodents or other animals digging there, but that is part of the landscape. I'm fine with either version. w.carter-Talk 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark. --King of ♠ 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the original. INeverCry 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark, as King of hearts. Oversaturated IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info I preffer this version, for example, compares the eyes --The Photographer (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As always. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Is this legitimately an alt version? It is better, though, and I support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you Miguel for this nom. I always was fond of this subject and still cannot understand the outcome of the first attempt. Poco2 06:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I see I changed my mind. What did it is that I thought about how detailed the picture of the pelican is, and the background looks OK at full-page size, though it still looks strange to me at full size. Best for me not to think about that part too much... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Question What do you mean ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Previously, when this photo, now presented as an alternate, was nominated, I opposed featuring it on the basis that I couldn't get past the background on the right side being so blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 07:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm confused. This image is already shown in the gallery as FP. Charles (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Same as Charlesjsharp... Strange.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Jebulon, Charles: if it would be a Commons FP you'd see the FP star in the top right. As you can see in the FP template it is considered FP in the Spanish WP, but not in Commons. Poco2 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Mmmmh, yes of course, I've noticed this, but anyway, this picture is now listed as Commons FP--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I dont't get you Jebulon, Poco2 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please have a look to the current categorization of this file...--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Are those cats for exclusive use of Commons FPs? That would be knew to me. I have though no problem with removing any categories containing "Featured" and not in "xxx Wikipedia" if there is consensus about that, but it isn't the place to discuss that, I guess. Poco2 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The trees of Category:Featured pictures by country and similar, are only for Commons FP, because "FP's" on many wikipedia languages are not necessarily what we consider as the finest of Commons, making these categories rather trivial when sorted into. Thanks --A.Savin 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be on category page, anyway, now diliff will win the first place --The Photographer (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A.Savin: no problem, will remove the images that are FP somwhere but not on Commons (I just checked they are 20) from Category:Featured pictures by country and from Category:Featured pictures of landscapes (or whatever subject).
The Photographer: is there something to win? what do you mean? Poco2 06:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have the idea that in some point WMF will support the photographers with more FP. Maybe I'm wrong, however, could be nice see WMF supporting us with a camera or a lens, for example. --The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background is overpowering to me. INeverCry 06:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pine 04:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • O sorry, I thought it was a detail of a church ceiling (I joke ).--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes esteban, I know....is the beautiful,blue sky,red sky and island. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting and beautiful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many posterized and unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Daniel is not posterized is the rarefied air ..... anyway where would unsharp? thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mostly per Daniel. It is rather noisy, there are practically no details at all on the sea, the sunset in itself is not extraordinary enough for an FP, the color especially around the islands is so posterized and saturated that at full size it almost looks like those psychedelic posters I had in my room during the 1960s, ok fond memories but not FP, sorry. --w.carter-Talk 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel & WC. INeverCry 22:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, it's a nice sunset, but except for the colorful striations in the middle, the picture pretty much just sits there, and at full size, it gets worse to my eyes, as explained by others above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lovely but the picture suffers from barrel distortion. I also wonder why it's that noisy at only ISO 100. --Code (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture, I think I'll have to oppose. A pity. --Code (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see distortion...and more a opposition more....what change? --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course that was more or less what I expected. Why are you participating here if you don't care about the feedback others give you at all? I really don't get it. This project is not just about collecting awards. --Code (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Because someone has talked about awards? Do not go out nonsense, I do not care about your opinion. It's different. This way you do it is pedantic and boring.--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was triying fix the noise, if it is not ok for you, please revert me LivioAndronico --The Photographer (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reverted --The Photographer (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture after of my comment I do not I received any feedback and btw, I agree with Code when he tell this project is not just about collecting awards and I found a lack of respect and maturity when LivioAndronico comment to Code I do not care about your opinion. It's different. Code deserves an apology --The Photographer (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And here's The Photographer who talk without being questioned. If you want respect then begins to respect others' opinions! Do what no one has asked you is not a test of maturity but of intelligence! However, I close here because probably become a boring speech which you are used to but I do not.--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Code: I would think Livio is participating here because he feels his photos deserve FP status. He's been right about this 96 times, so he's doing pretty well. If he doesn't want to change his images according to suggestions, so what? That's his business. Your comment about collecting awards is offensive. 96 FPs means 96 images of Livio's that were judged to be impressive enough for FP status. He earned those 96 FPs through his skill and talent as a photographer, he wasn't awarded anything. INeverCry 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear INeverCry, a good photographer not make you automatically an polite person. This place is not an street photo exhibition where opinions do not matter, it's a community based on participating which is the base too of FP section. Definitely, reviews are essential and for IMHO is the only way to improve the quality professional of this section. Code's comment refers to the fact that Livio ignored my comment followed by an immaturity act. --The Photographer (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Come on, seriously? My comment was offensive? Don't you think it's offensive to ignore other users comments or attempts to help and to tell them that one doesn't care of their opinion? If he doesn't care for other users' opinions why is he presenting his pictures here? At FPC, everything is about the opinions of the community. We're not only allowed to talk if Livio wants us to. Although Livio's behaviour is always very rude some users (including myself) try to help him improve his pictures again and again and all we get in return are statements like the ones cited above. You're defending that by pointing out that he's got 96 FP stars? Really? BTW: I don't expect him to change his pictures upon my request. But I expect him to at least answer other users' comments. It's a simple issue of politness. --Code (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ha ha! The same Simon Cowell who passed up Jennifer Hudson for Fantasia...a great judge... INeverCry 01:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: Oh, fine. A Sysop who finds it funny when I'm being insulted by Livio. Very funny indeed. You call me offensive and laugh about Livios obvious insults? Instead of laughing about Livio's bad jokes you should advise him to be polite to others. It would be nice if someone else could have a look at this thread, maybe @Christian Ferrer:, @Natuur12: or @A.Savin: for example. I don't want to take this to AN/U immediately. --Code (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me [1] --A.Savin 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I cant't tell that I'm happy with blocking him, however, this type of behavior within the community are unacceptable and is very regrettable also see an admin support this behavior. I have nothing more to say on this matter, only thanks A. Savin --The Photographer (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Túnel natural, Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2016-04-03, DD 05.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 17:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info Natural tunnel with a viewer at the back :) in Hartelholz Forest, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice doggy (and tunnel)! :) But there is red CA on most of the branches at the top. w.carter-Talk 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And  Support --w.carter-Talk 08:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Has an almost hand-painted appearance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Interesting motif, but I'm not really feeling the composition adding up at full-page size, maybe partly because of the crops, and the blurring makes a lot of branches look like they have snow on them at full size. That's too much (or maybe the wrong kind of) distortion, in my view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I also wowed that there's something in Munich I've never even heard of - Hartelholz... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Lucky?? --Hubertl 20:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Right, Hubertl! Lucky!! :) Poco2 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Awww... --w.carter-Talk 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Is this the dog who doesn't swim? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, the one who doesn't like swimming :) Poco2 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak support I like the composition, although the branches seem blurry. --Pine 04:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Trifolium pratense - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •  Info Red clover (Trifolium pratense), all by Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB if off, and the image looks oversharpened (see dark lines at the countours) --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Uoaei1: WB was not off, look at shooting time (or maybe you haven't seen orange light during golden hour?). Leaf edges of the red clover are sometimes dark red, look this --Ivar (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I have also added the Category:Plants and trees at golden hour (set up some new cats since the first one was getting crowded) to the pic, same as I did to your previous flower. Perhaps you should remember to add that in the future to keep misunderstandings to a minimum. w.carter-Talk 10:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The droplets really make this golden-hour flower special. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Modelo didatico bovino correto.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 00:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info It's not a correction, it's a restoration from original file, because, IMHO Arion nomination has destructive alterations like oversharpening, overexposition and color saturation, btw, I preffer a black background, remembering that it's only my opinion --The Photographer (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really a nice work, thanks! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This has evident relevance for Wikipedias! Joalpe (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As a Wikipedian, I thank you. :) w.carter-Talk 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

* Support, although to make this even much more valuable, parts should be labeled. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - I'm finding the remarks in opposition pretty persuasive, particularly Adam's remarks below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  strong opposition what's that in the mouth of the animal? Did you invented a new part? And this is a anatomic model, colours are painted by the human, it's not oversaturated, it's the colour of the model, and could be any colour actually, it's a educational model... And it was not "destructive" was we do not have any lost of information. Next time, ponder your words, or at least bring truths... Btw, your cuts are not clear, and the reason is simple, you changed the background colour, but do not took into consideration the invasion that black creates, now we have harsh white knurled lines, and you also do not removed the invasion of magenta provoked by the model itself. Remembering that it's only my opinion. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
PS:I strongly suggest you bright down your monitor, the grey it's not even close to be black, and we do not have areas overexposed in the orginal image. Seeing those evidences, your monitor is probably away more bright that should be to work with images. If you do not believe me, check the histogram... grey vs black. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Rodrigo please, we are here to learn, take it easy. --The Photographer (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
well, The Photographer, we are here to collaborate, not for learning, learning is the reward, and you started listing number of problems that was not there, and more, qualifying the contribution as "destructive". How this is collaborative? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rodrigo, please don't take it personally, how you can see, destrutive is a word very used here. --The Photographer (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The Photographer 23 results, we can not classify as very used, we have more presence of the word "shit" [2], and this do not mean that is good way to classify the work of someone, and more, using adjectives in an evaluation it is not appropriate and unproductive.
You still wrong in your affirmative...
And removing the poll and the clamps, made this away more unrealistic that already was, if you will remove the poll, remove the base... Clone stamping something so big should have the {{Retouched picture}} warning, specially in FP. Did you notify the volunteers that voted before this modifications? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Pido disculpas si fale uma coisa errada, analisando um pouco, tudas as modificações som destructivas e a gente faz sempre o melhor independentemente gente para algums seja bom o ruim. --The Photographer (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not comfortable with the amount of digital edits made. It is what it is, and removing the pole, changing the background... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thanks for your recomendation, however, the pole is a rusty suit that has nothing to do with the main subject and black blackgrounds are used in most scientific anatomy books to enhance the main subject. --The Photographer (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't just a diagram; it's a model. It loses a lot of value if parts of the model are removed. Besides the pole, the various screws and latches were also removed. But not the base. It's an awkward hybrid; you're basically trying to turn a photo of a 3D object into an SVG diagram. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Atsme 📞 18:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Adam Cuerden. Seems imbalanced only in two legs. Jee 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2016.07.04.-26-Eilenburg-Ost--Distelfalter.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 17:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 03:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Giorgi Balakhadze - uploaded by Giorgi Balakhadze - nominated by Giorgi Balakhadze -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Welcome to FPC, Giorgi Balakhadze! It's really a good start, but being a cell phone camera, the level of detail is somewhat limited. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Very weak support per Arion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I would suggest cloning out that black thing at top left in the sky. Good to see a nomination not shot with a multi-1000$ camera/lense. INeverCry 18:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is a beautiful scene, but I think the level of detail should have been a bit better here for an FP. This is not your fault, it's just us being very picky here. I also think you should nominate these for Quality Image and one of them for Valued image. We would also appreciate if you could provide the coordinates for the camera location on the files so that they can be displayed on OpenStreetMap and Google Earth. Please look at this files page to see how that is done. w.carter-Talk 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scenery, and the quality is quite good for a cell phone - but not enough for FP level. Details are too unsharp, and parts in shadow are too dark and noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - That's quite an impressive cell phone pic! But what is that black streak in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment It can be an eagle or something like that. I don't remember I was concentrated on the lake.--g. balaxaZe 06:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It doesn't come across as an eagle. If you'd be willing to remove it (clone it out), I would support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes beautiful place, but still we have our quality standards. Btw, the one below is better. --A.Savin 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 13:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment well, given the miniscule size of the camera's sensor (4mm diagonal), the f-stop as such is more than adequate. The lack of sharpness (at least when compared to more advanced photographic systems) is due to the sensor itself. This being said, the picture's still good enough imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Striking, especially that cloud shadow. Also the effort of getting these photos (reading the description) rivals this nom. w.carter-Talk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details. I also miss something special in this scenery. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this image is very good. Perhaps we could look for lacks but we should not overdo. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think this image is beautiful, poetic and deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful but too unsharp for a 6 MP image. --King of ♠ 23:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places
  • The count is incorrect. There are 7 supporting votes and the vote is to feature. This is the first time I've seen a numerical miscount by FPCBot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There was a space in the weak support vote which may fool the bot. Jee 04:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Junonia atlites-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Read in another language