Open main menu

Commons:Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi

Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi        Statuksen poistoehdotukset Statuksen poistoehdotukset

Alla on tämänhetkiset ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi. Huomaa, että tämä ei ole sama asia kuin päivän kuva.

EhdottaminenEdit

Ohjeita ehdottajilleEdit

Lue läpi Commons:Image guidelines ennen kuvan ehdottamista.

Alla on yhteenveto siitä, mitä tulee tarkastella arvioidessa kuvan sopivuutta suositelluksi kuvaksi:

  • Resoluutio – Yleensä kuvat, joiden resoluutio on alle kaksi megapikseliä, on hylätty. Alle kahden megapikselin kuva voidaan hyväksyä vain poikkeustapauksessa. Huomaa, että kuvassa, jonka resoluutio on 1 600 × 1 200, on noin 1,92 megapikseliä, joten se on kelvoton.
Commonsissa sijaitsevia kuvia voidaan käyttää muuhunkin kuin tietokoneen näytöllä katselemiseen. Niitä voidaan tulostaa tai katsella suurella resoluutiolla olevilla monitoreilla. Emme voi ennustaa, millaisia laitteistot tulevat olemaan tulevaisuudessa, joten kuvan tulee olla niin suurella resoluutiolla kuin mahdollista.
  • Fokus – kuvan tärkeimpien kohteiden tulisi olla teräviä.
  • Edusta ja tausta – edustalla ja taustalla olevat asiat voivat olla häiritseviä. Tarkista, että edustalla olevat kohteet eivät peitä mitään kuvan kannalta tärkeää ja taustalla olevat kohteet eivät pilaa asetelmaa, esimerkiksi katuvalo ei näytä tulevan jonkun päästä.
  • Tekninen korkealaatuisuus – suositellun kuvan tulee olla teknisesti korkealaatuinen.
  • Digitaaliset manipulaatiot eivät saa vetää nenästä kuvan katsojaa. Kuvassa olevien kauneusvirheiden korjaaminen on sallittua, jos korjaus on tehty hyvin ja sen tarkoituksena ei ole vääristää kuvaa. Hyväksyttäjä manipulaatioita ovat rajaus, perspektiivin oikaisu, terävöittäminen, sumentaminen ja valotuksen sekä värien korjailu. Monimutkaisemmat manipulaatiot ovat sallittuja vain, jos mallinetta {{Retouched picture}} käytetään kuvaussivulla. Kuvauksettomat tai väärin kuvatut monimutkaiset manipulaatiot ovat kiellettyjä.
  • Arvo – päätavoitteenamme on erottaa arvokkaimmat kuvat muista. Suositellun kuvan tulee olla jotenkin erikoinen.
    • Auringonlaskuista otetut valokuvat ovat kaikki vähän samanlaisia (Valokuvia)(Suomessa otettuja valokuvia)
    • Yökuvat saattavat olla hienompia, mutta päiväkuvista ilmenee yleensä enemmän tietoa
    • Kaunis ei ole sama asia kuin arvokas

Teknisiä yksityiskohtia käsitellään kohdissa valotus, asetelma, liikkeenhallinta ja terävyysalue.

  • Valotus – valotuksella tarkoitetaan valokuvauksessa kameran filmiin tallentuvaa tai digitaalikamerassa valoherkän kennon tallentamaa valon määrää. Valotuksen tulisi olla sopiva. Laajat ylivalottuneet alueet ovat usein häiritseviä.
  • Asetelma – asetelmalla tarkoitetaan kuvan esineiden sijoittumista toisiinsa nähden. ”Kolmoissääntö” (esimerkkikuva) on hyvä nyrkkisääntö siitä, millainen on hyvä asetelma. Kolmoissäännön ideana on, että kuva jaetaan kahdella pystyviivalla ja kahdella vaakaviivalla yhdeksään osaan (3×3). Pääaiheen sijoittaminen tiukasti kuvan keskelle on yleensä huonompi vaihtoehto mielenkiintoisuuden kannalta kuin pääaiheen sijoittaminen johonkin neljästä viivojen muodostamasta risteyksestä. Horisonttia ei tulisi sijoittaa kuvan keskelle, vaan jommankumman viivan keskelle. Kolmoissäännön avulla saadaan luotua dynaaminen kuva.
  • Liikkeenhallinta – liikkeenhallinnalla tarkoitetaan sitä, miten liike näkyy kuvassa. Liike voi olla terävää tai epätarkkaa. Jompikumpi aina ei ole paras vaihtoehto, vaan tärkeintä on aikomus havainnollistaa jotain. Liike on suhteellista kuvan kohteisiin verrattuna. Esimerkiksi valokuva ralliautosta, joka näyttäisi olevan paikallaan taustaa vasten, on huonompi vaihtoehto kuin valokuva ralliautosta, joka näkyy terävästi, mutta jonka tausta on sumuista, koska tällöin liikkeen huomaa helposti. Tätä kutsutaan ”panoroinniksi”. Toisaalta valokuva hyppäävästä koripallon pelaajasta, joka näyttää olevan paikallaan taustaa vasten, on hyvä sen epäluonnollisuuden takia.
  • Terävyysalue – terävyysalueella tarkoitetaan kuvan kohteen terävyyttä ympäristöön verrattuna. Terävyysalue valitaan jokaisen kuvan kohdalla erikseen. Suuri tai pieni terävyysalue voi huonontaa tai parantaa kuvan laatua. Pientä terävyysaluetta voidaan käyttää erottamaan pääkohde muusta ympäristöstä. Näin katsojan huomio kiinnittyy haluttuun kohteeseen. Suurta terävyysaluetta voidaan taas käyttää tilan havainnollistamiseen. Lähtökohtaisesti syväterävyysalue muodostuu sitä lyhyemmäksi, mitä suurempaa aukkoarvoa valokuvaaja käyttää. Vastaavasti pientä aukkoarvoa käytettäessä syväterävyysalue voi ulottua kuvan etualalta äärettömään. Aukon arvon lisäksi syväterävyysalueeseen vaikuttaa kuitenkin myös objektiivin todellinen polttoväli ja toisaalta kohteen etäisyys kuvaajasta.

Alla käsitellään vielä grafiikkaa.

  • Terävyys – pääkohteiden ääriviivojen on oltava teräviä.
  • Kolmiulotteisuus – kolmiulotteisuuden on oltava laadukasta. Parhaiten tämä onnistuu siten, että valo tulee kohteen sivulta. Yleensä kuvaajasta päin tuleva valo ei onnistu luomaan kunnollista kolmiulotteista vaikutelmaa, vaan se johtaa litteään vaikutelmaan. Paras valo ulkona on aamulla tai illalla.
  • Värit – värit eivät saa olla liian kylläisiä.
  • Tekstuuri – kohteen pinnan on oltava kolmiulotteisen näköinen ja laadukas.
  • Perspektiivi – kuvan tulee olla kolmiulotteinen.
  • Tasapaino – kuvan kohteiden tulisi olla tasapainossa keskenään. Suurta määrää kohteita ei tulisi jommallakummalla puolella.
  • Mittasuhde – mittasuhteella tarkoitetaan kuvan kohteiden kokoa toisiinsa verrattuna. Yleensä meillä taipumus esittää pienet kohteet pieninä, mutta toisaalta pienen kohteen esittäminen suurena luonnossa suurta kohdetta vasten on myös hyvä tekniikka, esimerkiksi kukan esittäminen vuorta vasten.
  • Symbolinen tarkoitus – huono kuva vaikeasta aiheesta on parempi kuin hyvä kuva helposta aiheesta.
Valokuvaaja ja/tai sen katselija voivat tarkastella kuvan kohdetta puolueellisesti. Kuvan arvoa ei tulisi arvioida arvioijan kulttuurillisen taustan perusteella, vaan se tulisi arvioida kuvan kulttuurillisen taustan perusteella. Hyvä kuva ”puhuu” katsojalle herättäen sellaisia tunteita kuin ilo, sympatia, herkkyys, suru, inho, viha ja raivo. Hyvän kuvan herättämät tunteet eivät ole vain positiivisia.

Uuden ehdotuksen lisääminenEdit

Jos sinusta tuntuu siltä, että olet löytänyt kuvan, josta voisi tulla suositeltu kuva ja jonka kuvaussivulla on hyväksytty ja totuudenmukainen tekijänoikeusmalline, toimi seuraavasti:

Askel 1: Kopioi kuvan nimi alla olevaan laatikkoon ja paina nappia ”Luo äänestyssivu”.


Askel 2: Noudata avautuvalla sivulla olevia ohjeita.

Askel 3: Lisää ehdokaslistan alkuun seuraava koodi:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:KIRJOITA TIEDOSTON NIMI TÄHÄN}}

ÄänestäminenEdit

Käytä äänestäessäsi seuraavia mallineita:

  • {{Support}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol support vote.svg Support. Käytä mallinetta, jos kannatat kuvaa suositelluksi kuvaksi.
  • {{Oppose}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Käytä mallinetta, jos vastustat statusta.
  • {{Neutral}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Käytä mallinetta, jos äänestät tyhjää.
  • {{Comment}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Käytä mallinetta, jos kommentoit jotakin.
  • {{Info}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram voting info.svg Info. Käytä mallinetta, jos informoit jostakin.
  • {{Question}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question. Käytä mallinetta, jos kysyt jostakin.

Jos kuvan ei ole mahdollista päästä suositelluksi kuvaksi, lisää äänestyssivulle {{FPX|KIRJOITA TÄHÄN, MIKSI KUVA EI VOI OLLA SUOSITELTU KUVA}}.

Perustele aina mielipiteesi. Muista allekirjoittaa lisäyksesi. Allekirjoittaminen tapahtuu kirjoittamalla ~~~~ kommentin perään tai painamalla työkalurivin painiketta Button sig.png kursorin ollessa sopivalla kohdalla.

Statuksen poistoehdotuksen lisääminenEdit

Jos jokin suositeltu kuva on mielestäsi kelvoton suositelluksi kuvaksi, voit ehdottaa suositellun kuvan statuksen poistoa.

Sellaisissa äänestyksissä tulee käyttää mallinetta {{Keep}}, joka luo lopputuloksen Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, halutessasi statuksen säilyvän tai mallinetta {{Delist}}, joka luo lopputuloksen Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist , halutessasi statuksen poistoa.

Luodessasi uuden äänestyksen, toimi ohjeen mukaan:

Askel 1: Kopioi kuvan nimi alla olevaan laatikkoon ja paina nappia ”Luo äänestyssivu”.


Askel 2: Noudata avautuvalla sivulla olevia ohjeita.

Askel 3: Lisää ehdokaslistan alkuun seuraava koodi:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:KIRJOITA TIEDOSTON NIMI TÄHÄN}}

KäytäntöEdit

Yleiset säännötEdit

  1. Äänestys on auki tasan yhdeksän vuorokautta ehdotuksen tekemisen jälkeen.
  2. Käyttäjätunnuksettomat käyttäjät saavat ehdottaa ja keskustella, mutta eivät äänestää.
  3. Ehdotus ei ole ääni. Ääni on annettava erikseen.
  4. Ehdottaja voi vetää ehdotuksen pois lisäämällä {{withdraw|~~~~}} äänestyssivulle.
  5. Wikimedia Commons ei ole vain Wikipedian kuvavarasto, joten kuvia ei tule arvioida vain Wikipediaan soveltuvuuden perusteella.
  6. Jos kuva ei saa muita kannattavia ääniä kuin ehdottajan viiden vuorokauden kuluessa ehdotuksen tekemisestä, poistoäänestys tulee lopettaa.
  7. Mallineella {{FPX}} merkitty poistoäänestys tulee lopettaa 24 tunnin kuluttua mallineen lisäämisestä, jos muita kannatusääniä kuin ehdottajan ei ole.

Statuksen muutosEdit

Kuvasta tulee suositeltu kuva, jos se täyttää seuraavat vaatimukset:

  1. Kuvaussivulla on hyväksytty ja totuudenmukainen tekijänoikeusmalline
  2. Vähintään viisi kannatusääntä
  3. Vähintään kaksi kolmasosaa äänistä kannattavia
  4. Saman kuvan eri versiosta vain yksi saa olla suositeltu kuva. Siitä kuvasta, joka on kerännyt eniten kannattavia ääniä, tulee suositeltu kuva.

Statuksen poistoehdotuksen kohdalla sovelletaan samoja sääntöjä. Jos statuksen poistoa kannattavia ääniä ei ole tullut ehdottajan äänen lisäksi viiden vuorokauden kuluessa ehdotuksen teosta, äänestys tulee sulkea.

Ohjeita äänestyksen lopettamisesta on sivulla Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished.

Arvostele hyvien tapojen mukaisestiEdit

Muista, että kuva jota kommentoit on jonkun tekemä. Älä käytä sellaista tyyliä kommenteissasi kuin ”Vihaan kuvaa”, ”Kuva on ihan ruma” tai ”Kamala kuva”.

Katso myösEdit

SisällysluetteloEdit

Contents

Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksiEdit

Jos uudet ehdotukset eivät näy tällä sivulla, purge this page's cache.

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:2017.06.18.-20-Viernheim--Barbarossa-Fliege-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 15:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:African hawk eagle (Aquila spilogaster).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 13:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Roesel's bush-cricket (Metrioptera roeselii diluta) male.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 13:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info This "macropterous form" subspecies is colonising the UK; this specimen being the furthest north it had been recorded in Oxfordshire. The longer wings allow it to fly. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good detail and sharpness, nice bokeh. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 12:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Unknown / J. Paul Getty Museum, uploaded by Eingangskontrolle, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality and resolution of a famous sculpture. It was suggested that the background may need denoising, but it was finally promoted FP as it is on the English Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Heubach -- 2019 -- 3260.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 05:45:53 (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 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info The nomination was proposed Ikan Kekek. Thank you to Ikan! -- XRay talk 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, I find this poetic - a reed's eye view of the sun, so to speak. Delicate, and with what strikes me as a Japanese-influenced sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support poetic indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Would it be possible to reduce the blue CAs? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Thank you for your hint. I just fixed it. --XRay talk 14:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:River bank of Don Khon with stilt wooden houses at golden hour from Don Det Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 03:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely sunset and clouds. -- King of ♠ 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Any chance to get a bit more space on the left? The crop is tiny bit tight. Also, there are a few spots in the sky - some of them seem to be bugs but at least one looks like a dust spot. I've inserted a note. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done More space added on the left. It's almost sure there was no dust spot in the previous version, because 1) it was too small and too dark to be a dust spot, 2) I have a great technique to change my lenses to avoid dust when the body is open and I've never seen one in any previous picture, and 3) I've just checked my captor right now by shooting at f/32 on a white surface and the conclusion is also no dust spot visible here :-) But I've cloned out these birds which were not essential in the composition :-) Thanks, Podzemnik. Also pinging King of -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Basile. One day, I'd like to see your "great technique" to change your lens :) Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I learned this trick on youtube a long time ago (video in French). The basic is to keep your body around your neck, and to prepare your lens in one hand like "in the starting block". As soon as you remove the previous lens, in less than one second, immediately you come with the other one, the body orientated to the bottom, so the dusts cannot infiltrate. It's a very quick operation, and you need good hands to catch both (sometimes heavy) lenses, but it's been working very well. And the day you have a single dust spot, bring it to the maintenance, and do the same :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I actually might want more to the right, but nitpicking aside, this is exactly the kind of appealing image that graces tourism brochures - when they're lucky enough to get this good a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done More space on the right also, and thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I do like this version a bit more than the last one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof Seefeld in Tirol (20181216 141254).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 00:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
  •   Info created by Simon04 - uploaded by Simon04 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me, the composition is rather scattered. You have many lines converging in the center, but then the shadows are going in a completely different direction. -- King of ♠ 02:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King of Hearts. Disturbing people in the background. Technical issues: highlights blown, loss of detail in the shadows. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Climbing World Championships 2018 Lead Semi Lettner (BT0A1201).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 00:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nido de tejedores republicanos (Philetairus socius), Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 171.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 22:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cataract Creek, Mount Tamalpais State Park (February 2019).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 11:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"[…] not the best image of the stream" – which other picture of Cataract Creek are you referring to? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice scene and nice colors, but something about the composition seems off to me; it's not quite balanced. -- King of ♠ 02:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The dark heavy beam at the top is like obstructing the view. While the most interesting part is in my opinion the stream at the bottom, it is cut too tight. We want to see more of this water going out. I find the long exposure successful, but not the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I included the fallen redwood tree on purpose, as it's one of the characteristics of the creek. Unlike in most parts of Western Europe, forests here in Northern California are being left alone and look much more natural (without forest management cleaning everything up within a couple of weeks) than e.g. in Germany. Now, with regard to the "obstruction", I composed the image on purpose like that. To me, it evokes the question "Hey, what's behind that corner?" (which, for me, as someone who lives here, is what I'm asking myself all the time when I saunter through old redwood groves) – but in the end, it comes down to a matter of taste and I certainly respect your view of the matter. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I like your alternative below -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, I really disagree with the opposers. I like this version much better. And it's precisely the tree trunk that differentiates this from many other photos of streams and is such a satisfying thing to see at the top of the picture frame. The other version just doesn't have the same satisfying alternation of lights and darks, and most of the moss is cut from the trunk. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • And for what it's worth also, I really disagree with the supporters ;-) The composition of this version is too static for a stream with moving water. Here it seems to be only one subject, the rock with moss on the right, which is not captivating enough to be a whole. Unfortunately the eyes are drained to this part with no exit. I don't find the moss essential at the top, it looks more like a heavy and huge stop your way. At the bottom, the image seems sectioned, as if something was missing. We need this restful area after the fall -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

  •   Comment @Basile Morin: I get your point about the balance, though. So, here's another version with more water in the foreground and less tree… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, this version is much better in my opinion, the composition is clearly improved due to these two reciprocal lines starting from the top and bottom corners at the left, making like a symmetry with a horizontal axis in the middle, where the sight is lead. Pleasant balance now. And the stream is also better. Nice shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this version better. I like that you can see more of the stream. Also, a piece of light in the back, where my eyes focused first, is a whole, enclosed element. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support both alternatives are good! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this better. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria Anzbach Buchbergwarte Panorama W 20190217.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 09:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower Austria
  •   Info Panoramic view to the west from the observation tower at the Buchberg mountain (469 metres (1,539 ft)), municipality of Maria Anzbach, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very good labeling, so good for VI, but I find the photo quite hazy and I'm not captivated by the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not convinced by a barren landscape in the middle of winter. For better contrast and colors, either there should be snow, or it should be taken in a different season. -- King of ♠ 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Not the best light that day.--Peulle (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Flamenco común (Phoenicopterus roseus), Walvis Bay, Namibia, 2018-08-05, DD 30.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 20:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sninský kameň (v zime) 074.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 19:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castle of Montal 12.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 07:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I quite like this. There's one small detail I don't understand, though: Is there some kind of mist only in the shadow at the top of the tree to the left of the chateau? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in its current form: there's quite a bit of barrel distortion going on. It's pretty normal for the ridge of an old roof to sag, but this one is doing the opposite. Other pictures in Category:Château de Montal suggest that both roofs' ridges are indeed pretty much straight. Also, I don't really dig the composition. With the trees blocking the lower part of the walls, I can't find much to hold on to. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed and the cylindrical projection is not natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:A nymphaea capensis in Viet Nam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 6:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you, I will try better in the next time.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. It would make a great cover image for a maxipad box, though. Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spotted Sandpiper (non-breeding plumage) (32877802088).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 21:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose I really think the crop needs changing for FP. Charles (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the size and well done --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Blue and green is a very common color palette in landscapes but not something we see all the time in bird photography. -- King of ♠ 02:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not bad, but the crop is too tight. --Hockei (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I just find the background too distracting. Definitely a QI though. Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Ben Arthur, Arrochar Alps, Scotland 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 18:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
  •   Info All by me. It's Ben Arthur, also called The Cobbler, an epic mountain in the Southern Highlands, Scotland. The picture was taken about 20 minutes after sunrise and the light was mesmerizing that morning. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely light, photogenic mountain. I do think your focus is a bit close meaning the distance isn't as sharp as foreground. Btw, did you thread the eye of the needle? I did that as a young teenager. Not a difficult scramble to the top but very very exposed. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sure it was a great experience to be up there, but the shapes aren't doing enough for me for me to consider this a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but the image is not talking to me. I don't believe this one is among our finest, sorry Poco2 06:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I love mountain landscapes. and for me this is a nice picture. But the left side from the middle to the top could have been sharper. The WB. is on the warm side for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:A nymphaea capensis in Vietnam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 17:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Nymphaea
  •   Info A purple waterlily (nymphaea capensis) after a rain in Vietnam, take by me. -- Thanhdien8421 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Displeasing noise at higher resolutions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality is far below FP standards. There are heavy compression artefacts and the left crop cuts off one of the petals.--Peulle (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your idea. This is the first time I take part in this competion, so I've not had many experience yet. I will try to improve it later and I hope you will help me.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't already, you might consider going to COM:Photography critiques for advice, or to COM:QIC, which has relatively tough standards but not as tough as FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Comment It’s a pity that the image quality is low; else, this would be a wonderful image IMHO. --Aristeas (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too low in quality, as per oppose votes. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Stift Wilhering Kirche Orgel 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done Slightly brightened --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive architecture, impressive photo. Not so impressive restoration of the ceiling fresco ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Charles (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support good --67.68.177.192 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great motif and detail, would it be possible to specify in the panorama template how many frames have been used here instead os saying "multiple"? --Poco2 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I wish it were a teeny bit more centered, and that something could be done about all that blue around the window above the altar, but otherwise this is great. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Sella da Ciandepinëi.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Simple composition, great resolution. I like how the shadow emphasizes the mountain massif above. Maybe cropping a bit of the right part would be nice so the bottom of the valley-like shadow is in the middle of the picture. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A sort of magic mountain. I love the textures and shapes of the rock, the road with hairpin curves and everything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Although as Podzemnik says, centering the view on the massif would feel better. --GeXeS (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice but it is tilted in ccw direction, see houses on the left and trees in the middle and on the left, could you fix that? File size IMHO again too big specially considering that the sharpness is just ok (but perfectly understandable for this far shot) Poco2 06:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Beautiful and of very high quality. There are stitching errors at the bottom of the picture (the lines of the cableway are interrupted at two points) but that appears minor given the scale of the scenery. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Highlights on the snow high up could be dimmed, but they're such a small part of the overall image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Amphitheatre Bay after a storm, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 06:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Cyprus (Cyprus doesn't have its section yet)
  •   Info All by me. It's Amphitheatre Bay, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus, about a minute after a storm. You can still see rain in the clouds. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting atmosphere. Could perhaps benefit from a slight brightening. -- King of ♠ 06:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
True true. Thanks for the review, I brightened it up a bit. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely. On brightening, though: The brighter version may look better in isolation, but you're giving something up, which is the atmosphere of an impending thunderstorm. You might consider splitting the difference somewhere between the two versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan, I tried to find a sweet middle spot. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I like it. I also misread "a minute a storm". I thought you meant a minute before a storm, but I see from the file description that it's a minute after a storm, clearly with the sun coming out behind it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hups, I forgot to put the word "after" into the description above. Fixed, thanks for the hint. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin - nuit (Colmar).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 13:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Prefecture of Haut-Rhin at night in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). -- Gzen92 [discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gzen92 [discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm not ready to vote, so I'll just mention what I'm seeing. It's a nice photo, though not huge compared to the building photos we've mostly been considering at FPC lately. Sharpness of the blue-lit areas is not overwhelming. Also, the symmetry is nice, but the building is cropped on both sides. Overall, it's definitely a QI, but I'm unsure it's an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I guess I don't think it's quite an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough subject isolation between the dark parts of the building and the night sky. Try again during blue hour. -- King of ♠ 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Angle makes it look tilted; also not sharp up front. And per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arnsberg-Panorama Herbst 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 09:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •   Info Panoramic view from Ehmsendenkmal over Arnsberg. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Many pixels, but I don't find these houses particularly exciting -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Basile, the way you feel about this is sort of the way I've been feeling about the picture of a highrise development in Jersey City that's nominated further down the page. In this case, the composition works for me, maybe partly because of all the different orientations of the houses and the interspersed greenery. Either way, I do enjoy this, and it's also impressive, as usual from Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. Many pixels do not a picture make. The view is random and the sides are heavily shaded. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- This is a very useful picture for Wikipedia articles on Arnberg, but I'm afraid it does not have a sufficient wow-factor to qualify as a featured picture. With apologies, MartinD (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, although it would probably qualify for both QI and VI. --El Grafo (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. I don't find the shady corners too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile, and some buildings are not straight (bottom, right but also some in the middle-left). I can add notes if you like. Poco2 06:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Marina di Pescara, December 2014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 23:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Is there something I can do to fix it?--Earthh (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You can contact the photographer to request another version modified from the RAW file. Though I'm not sure this will succeed anyway.   Oppose for now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. No, once a JPG is over-exposed, there often isn't much one can do. The composition is rather messy. The mountains are impressive but the foreground is random. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The composition is at least active, and I wouldn't call it completely random - it's framed by 2 masts on either side - but the overexposure is problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I also find the composition crowded.--Peulle (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Overexposed, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bridge over the River Soar, Abbey Park (geograph 4718856).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 17:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fluweelpootje, (Flammulina velutipes), (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 16:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Flammulina velutipes.
  •   Info Enokitake. (Flammulina velutipes). Wet rained little mushrooms (Enokitake) on the dead wood of an elder (Sambucus nigra).
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice, but IMO, a little too grainy to be great. Could you do something about that, if others agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.18.-08-Viernheim--Roter Fingerhut.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Plantaginaceae
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not as good as File:Bloemen en knoppen van Vingerhoedskruid (Digitalis purpurea). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg which shows various stages and the internals of the flower. This is a very common flower so I would expect something special about the specimen or the artistic composition for FP. (Btw, Hockei, "Plants" is a huge FP category, so please help reviewers and closers by locating the section of that page -- I've added Plantaginaceae to the link above). -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I won't assess the other picture mentioned above and I won't let me play off against others. The other picture has a different composition. In my picture the blossoms hanging down and more other details make it interesting such as the colours and the grass in the background. The both pictures are not comparable. --Hockei (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A Qi for sure, but Colin is right about why it isn't an FP compared to the other picture of the same species. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.17.-19-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info As announced, the other version. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the other one, the flash on the fur is not best, and the "looking down" is not immersive like the best animal photography. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Cute, and a lot bigger than the ~10 cm in length that this vole would have been. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harshly lit, doesn't wow me. -- King of ♠ 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Lots of EV, though … --El Grafo (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info This type of Sphingidae (about 45mm long) has a huge proboscis. The wings beat at around 45 beats/second, so it is not possible to freeze wing motion in the wild. From Bulgaria. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support considering that this was captured in flight: wow! --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I already liked the photo and considered the motion blur appropriate, but I'm more impressed, considering that it beats its wings 45x a second. Technical question, though: Why wouldn't you use a shorter exposure than 1/1,600 of a second? Granted that I was only using an Android and mostly photographing butterflies that had alighted for a fraction of a second or more, but I was having much better luck last summer in getting sharp pictures of butterflies with rapidly beating wings when I shortened my exposure to 1/4,090 of a second. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm already at maximum aperture (F5.6) and would have gone to 1/2000 and ISO 800 if I had time. I find that although sharpness would be better at 1/4000, overall quality (for print or FP pixel-peeping) really deteriorates above ISO 800. With this sort of photography I use a preset of 1/1600 or 1/2000 sec. If I leave it up to the camera's brain (SCN Sports), it can get confused: if it sees the insect's body as pretty still it reduces shutter speed. If it sees the wings it might select 1/8000 and a very high ISO. On my Canon 80D I have two presets (C1 and C2). I program one at 1/1600 (TV = shutter priority: S on Nikon I think) and one at 1/2000. I then get better depth of field if the light happens to be really good. Not this time. Charles (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Brown hairstreak (Thecla betulae) Bulgaria.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Newport Jersey City June 2015 panorama.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 06:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I agree. I considered opposing, as I don't see a great composition, but the composition is not bad, helped by the wooden spikes, and as you say, the photo is technically very good, so I don't see the point in standing in the way of consensus on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see this as the latest of King's series of skylines of the Northeastern United States. I think this view is even better now, and I've been thinking myself of taking the train down to Hoboken and shooting that view. From the promenades between the station and the development a really amazing view is possible that takes in both Newport, which looks really cool with newer buildings like the Ellipse going up, and the Lower Manhattan skyline with the new 1 WTC. With a little of the trees along the promenade on the lower right, and those old bollards. It's one of a slowly increasing number of places in and around New York which almost make you think you're in China.

    Maybe this spring ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 05:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Boris Breuer, uploaded by Guestwires, nominated by Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice professional quality portrait, high resolution. -- Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. It feels slightly unusual that there's so much room to her right, but somehow, it works. Very sharp, beautiful subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That's part of the viewer's experience. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp and focused. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The bright and contrasty lighting helps accentuate the subject. Could use perhaps a little bit more headroom, but otherwise great portrait. -- King of ♠ 06:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The strange background makes this special. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, useful -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The DOF could be a very bit deeper (see the fingers on the left). But aside of that, it is one of the best portrait I've seen. Quality and composition. --Hockei (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the idea of her being off-center. Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I love shoten! :) JukoFF (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
joke :) JukoFF (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Forte de Copacabana 10-crop.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 03:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info created by Halleypo - uploaded and nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice scene with a lot going on in it, but at 7.3 MP I'd like to see better sharpness. -- King of ♠ 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per King. I agree with everything he says, but the photo is so beautiful. No possibility of a larger resolution, I take it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not finding much more here than a holiday snap, I'm afraid. Technical issues per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light, too much haze and relatively small resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others; blown surf is difficult not to see. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Moscow VDNKh Space Pavilion asv2018-08 img5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 21:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
  •   Info Dome interior of the 32th Pavilion of VDNKh Park Moscow ("Space Exploration" Pavilion, built in 1954) All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm disappointed you weren't able to get the entire dome in the picture. I feel like even if it's partly blocked by other objects, it might be more satisfying for the entire area of the dome to be in the picture, not cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak support Only because I think it was probably not possible to get the whole dome in the frame (without merging separate images into a vertorama, anyway, which may have created a different set of problems. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly a QI but I don't find the composition compelling. The dome is cut on two sides, and the overlaying part at the bottom distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The crop is a shortcoming, maybe an inevitable one, but the light is great. --Aristeas (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support JukoFF (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arcade du Cinquantenaire (DSCF7405).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Belgium
  •   Info by User:Trougnouf
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like the subject is naturally asymmetric on the far extremes - that's OK, but I'd prefer if the asymmetric bits were cropped off. -- King of ♠ 22:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the asymmetry of the building and prefer the crop as is, framing the colonnade. -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The ghost flag is absolutely central, and quite disturbing -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose oer Basile. There's also a blurred person as you move to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral on technical reasons (regardless of the crop, but I do agree it will be an improvement). Note that B&W does tend to hide flaws such as grain and unsharpness compared to the color image. -- King of ♠ 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, a bit noisy :\ ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Info 16:9 crop as suggested. —Bruce1eetalk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - I think what Gerifalte is seeing as noise, I'm seeing as grain. Anyway, I like the photo, but it's a close case on whether it should be featured or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support impressive composition, not too happy about the noise --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   strong support I don't care about the noise. I could print this at A3 size and given an appropriate viewing distance it would not be apparent. What I do find a bit irritating is the sharpening halo along the bottom of the bridge. And maybe I'd try taking the edge off the highlights in the sky a bit more; I find those almost-white patches a bit distracting. Otherwise: just plain awesome. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a good example of long-exposure to blur the sky and sea, providing contrast between soft and hard, formless and form. It is a picture to be enjoyed as a whole, not under a magnifying glass. The white cables against dark sky are a good catch. Even with this 16:9 crop it is still 15MP so pixel level sharpness or noise is not important for this kind of image, and would be irrelevant if printed. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- An excellent picture! MartinD (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noisy but very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Great view but too much noise, it needs to be adressed --Poco2 06:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great (the often mentioned noise doesn’t bother me, per El Grafo and Colin). --Aristeas (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent. JukoFF (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 058.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
  •   Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another path with nobody in it. I'm not really convinced by the composition. The weather isn't quite misty enough to be an interesting feature. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant   Oppose per Colin. Yes, beautiful atmosphere, but the composition falls a bit flat to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support. Very nice atmosphere. And landscape with nobody on this abandoned place is very fine me. -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition, per Colin. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Might work if the path divided at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice shot but IMHO still lacks wow effect Poco2 20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin and Poco. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3216-22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:53:09 (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 07:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 07:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice lines and beautiful sunlight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A courageous shot, but well done. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop below at the pond is too tight and bothers me. It would work better for me with crop above in between 16:9 and 16:10, so that the treetops on the left are not cut. --Hockei (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 15:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A couple of days have gone by without votes, so I think maybe more people feel like I do - I'll be the first to say it: The standard for church ceilings is very high, so this doesn't quite float my boat. It has some cool patterns, but that's about it; it's not quite up there with the other photos in the category.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
  •   Moderate support It's not perfect, yes, but I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. There are lots more "wow" ceilings on Commons, so can't be "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Feature picture candidates of architecture should come with an informative description. This photo has been taken in an abbey church with a long and complex building history. When was this vault constructed, were there any reconstruction/refurbishment works executed in the 19th century or later? Is this the crossing vault? How is this picture oriented? @Colin: Many of the Gothic vaults of medieval monasteries were not designed with “wow” in mind, this would have been distracting. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • AFBorchert I agree the architects did not have FPC in mind. Scottish Presbyterian churches are rather plain too when compared with those in other countries. In the end we are here to judge an image for wow and if the subject lacks wow then it is hard overcome that. National Geographic photographer Jim Richardson once said "If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff". Of course, pictures such as this are still valuable to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - My understanding is that the vaults in Gothic cathedrals were indeed intended to awe, as they represented the vault of the Heavens, and the stained glass windows, aside from telling sacred stories, were meant to filter colored light into the cathedrals like Heavenly jewels. In addition, with their tall ceilings and towers, Gothic cathedrals were commonly visible for miles as pilgrims walked to church. So I would definitely disagree that they were not designed with "wow" in mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: This is not a cathedral but an abbey church where visitors in medieval time came not even close to the crossing as they had to stay behind the rood screen. Instead, this belongs to a very intimate place where monks went down the stairs from the dormitory at the middle of the night, walked through the south transept and the crossing, turning to the choir to hold a candlelit vigil in the stalls.
@Colin: As you well know, “wow” is nowhere mentioned in the nominating guidelines of COM:FPC. Instead the guidlines tell that candidates “should be in some way special”. Gothic architecture including that of austere abbey churches is “interesting stuff” even if it is not overwhelming with eye candy. One might wonder if a particular photograph is good at catching the atmosphere and the architecture of an object like this. For example, I would prefer a shot like this one from the ambulatory of the same church if it would be of the same quality. Gothic architecture comes always with lights and shadows which continually change the shapes during the course of a day. In this FP candidate, however, we see just the vault which is illuminated quite uniformely with polychromatic light (probably coming from stained glass). This is not the fault of the photographer and the photo is unquestionable valuable but in my opinion this kind of light spoils the solemnity of the vault. So, in this case I would not support FP status but surely not for having no “wow”. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
AFBorchert, the Commons:Image guidelines which the nomination page links to as "Please read the complete guidelines before nominating", does mention "wow", twice. Indeed, "wow factor" is the only quality-related differentiating factor it mentions vs QI, though the nomination page also says FP is to determine images to be "highlighted as some of the finest on Commons", which indicates an exclusive top spot that QI doesn't aim for either. Photographically, this image is unoriginal and a very common approach to capturing such a ceiling. I've done that myself (File:Paisley Abbey Ceiling.jpg) but that ceiling is far more interesting to look at. One problem with this view is that can be very hard to judge depth, leaving the result looking like a pattern but less clear form. The other photo you link has much better light, and it is easy to see the form of the ceiling. A photographer could take a less wow ceiling but capture it with great light and/or a great viewpoint and composition, and produce an FP. Perhaps my original "this can't be" is too strong: it is just much harder to achieve. If one starts with a fantastic ceiling, then one almost only has to make sure the camera is dead centre, pointing straight up and sufficient DoF. Or to put it another way, someone has to create "wow": either the stonemasons or the photographer. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You are right, Colin, I missed the “wow” in Commons:Image guidelines. But I still think that this term is unfortunate as the term strengthens the short-term effect of the eye-candyness factor too far to my taste. Otherwise, I agree that depth is a problem for this candidate. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Beskid Mały Mountains (PL).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On any other photo site, this image would have people (or animals) in it. A movie director would be shouting "Action!". The scene is a great one, but it needs something in it. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   conditional support It's nice, real nice, but the categories need improving.--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agreed on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • what is wrong with the categories? English version of the park? --Pudelek (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The categories are fine, but I think you need to add one for crepuscular rays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I immediately thought of Ermell's picture that you linked first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The light and shadow play of the sun's rays should be more contrastful IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose Having done something similar once, I really wanted to be able to support this. But ... per Colin, there should be something to draw us to the center of the frame, or per Hockei the crepuscular rays should have more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Colin here Poco2 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the mood --Llez (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Viru Bog at winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 16:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Actually, it's not ... look closely and you can see the color on the tree trunks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'd prefer if it were really black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel--Ermell (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is not impressive, but still acceptable. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support JukoFF (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


Statuksen poistoehdotuksetEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:2017.06.18.-20-Viernheim--Barbarossa-Fliege-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 15:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:African hawk eagle (Aquila spilogaster).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 13:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Roesel's bush-cricket (Metrioptera roeselii diluta) male.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 13:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info This "macropterous form" subspecies is colonising the UK; this specimen being the furthest north it had been recorded in Oxfordshire. The longer wings allow it to fly. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good detail and sharpness, nice bokeh. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 12:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Unknown / J. Paul Getty Museum, uploaded by Eingangskontrolle, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality and resolution of a famous sculpture. It was suggested that the background may need denoising, but it was finally promoted FP as it is on the English Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Heubach -- 2019 -- 3260.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 05:45:53 (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 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info The nomination was proposed Ikan Kekek. Thank you to Ikan! -- XRay talk 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, I find this poetic - a reed's eye view of the sun, so to speak. Delicate, and with what strikes me as a Japanese-influenced sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support poetic indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Would it be possible to reduce the blue CAs? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Thank you for your hint. I just fixed it. --XRay talk 14:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:River bank of Don Khon with stilt wooden houses at golden hour from Don Det Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 03:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely sunset and clouds. -- King of ♠ 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Any chance to get a bit more space on the left? The crop is tiny bit tight. Also, there are a few spots in the sky - some of them seem to be bugs but at least one looks like a dust spot. I've inserted a note. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done More space added on the left. It's almost sure there was no dust spot in the previous version, because 1) it was too small and too dark to be a dust spot, 2) I have a great technique to change my lenses to avoid dust when the body is open and I've never seen one in any previous picture, and 3) I've just checked my captor right now by shooting at f/32 on a white surface and the conclusion is also no dust spot visible here :-) But I've cloned out these birds which were not essential in the composition :-) Thanks, Podzemnik. Also pinging King of -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Basile. One day, I'd like to see your "great technique" to change your lens :) Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I learned this trick on youtube a long time ago (video in French). The basic is to keep your body around your neck, and to prepare your lens in one hand like "in the starting block". As soon as you remove the previous lens, in less than one second, immediately you come with the other one, the body orientated to the bottom, so the dusts cannot infiltrate. It's a very quick operation, and you need good hands to catch both (sometimes heavy) lenses, but it's been working very well. And the day you have a single dust spot, bring it to the maintenance, and do the same :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I actually might want more to the right, but nitpicking aside, this is exactly the kind of appealing image that graces tourism brochures - when they're lucky enough to get this good a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done More space on the right also, and thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I do like this version a bit more than the last one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bahnhof Seefeld in Tirol (20181216 141254).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 00:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
  •   Info created by Simon04 - uploaded by Simon04 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me, the composition is rather scattered. You have many lines converging in the center, but then the shadows are going in a completely different direction. -- King of ♠ 02:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King of Hearts. Disturbing people in the background. Technical issues: highlights blown, loss of detail in the shadows. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Climbing World Championships 2018 Lead Semi Lettner (BT0A1201).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 00:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nido de tejedores republicanos (Philetairus socius), Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 171.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 22:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cataract Creek, Mount Tamalpais State Park (February 2019).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 11:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"[…] not the best image of the stream" – which other picture of Cataract Creek are you referring to? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice scene and nice colors, but something about the composition seems off to me; it's not quite balanced. -- King of ♠ 02:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The dark heavy beam at the top is like obstructing the view. While the most interesting part is in my opinion the stream at the bottom, it is cut too tight. We want to see more of this water going out. I find the long exposure successful, but not the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I included the fallen redwood tree on purpose, as it's one of the characteristics of the creek. Unlike in most parts of Western Europe, forests here in Northern California are being left alone and look much more natural (without forest management cleaning everything up within a couple of weeks) than e.g. in Germany. Now, with regard to the "obstruction", I composed the image on purpose like that. To me, it evokes the question "Hey, what's behind that corner?" (which, for me, as someone who lives here, is what I'm asking myself all the time when I saunter through old redwood groves) – but in the end, it comes down to a matter of taste and I certainly respect your view of the matter. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I like your alternative below -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, I really disagree with the opposers. I like this version much better. And it's precisely the tree trunk that differentiates this from many other photos of streams and is such a satisfying thing to see at the top of the picture frame. The other version just doesn't have the same satisfying alternation of lights and darks, and most of the moss is cut from the trunk. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • And for what it's worth also, I really disagree with the supporters ;-) The composition of this version is too static for a stream with moving water. Here it seems to be only one subject, the rock with moss on the right, which is not captivating enough to be a whole. Unfortunately the eyes are drained to this part with no exit. I don't find the moss essential at the top, it looks more like a heavy and huge stop your way. At the bottom, the image seems sectioned, as if something was missing. We need this restful area after the fall -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

  •   Comment @Basile Morin: I get your point about the balance, though. So, here's another version with more water in the foreground and less tree… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, this version is much better in my opinion, the composition is clearly improved due to these two reciprocal lines starting from the top and bottom corners at the left, making like a symmetry with a horizontal axis in the middle, where the sight is lead. Pleasant balance now. And the stream is also better. Nice shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this version better. I like that you can see more of the stream. Also, a piece of light in the back, where my eyes focused first, is a whole, enclosed element. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support both alternatives are good! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this better. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria Anzbach Buchbergwarte Panorama W 20190217.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 09:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower Austria
  •   Info Panoramic view to the west from the observation tower at the Buchberg mountain (469 metres (1,539 ft)), municipality of Maria Anzbach, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very good labeling, so good for VI, but I find the photo quite hazy and I'm not captivated by the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not convinced by a barren landscape in the middle of winter. For better contrast and colors, either there should be snow, or it should be taken in a different season. -- King of ♠ 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Not the best light that day.--Peulle (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Flamenco común (Phoenicopterus roseus), Walvis Bay, Namibia, 2018-08-05, DD 30.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 20:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sninský kameň (v zime) 074.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 19:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castle of Montal 12.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 07:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I quite like this. There's one small detail I don't understand, though: Is there some kind of mist only in the shadow at the top of the tree to the left of the chateau? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in its current form: there's quite a bit of barrel distortion going on. It's pretty normal for the ridge of an old roof to sag, but this one is doing the opposite. Other pictures in Category:Château de Montal suggest that both roofs' ridges are indeed pretty much straight. Also, I don't really dig the composition. With the trees blocking the lower part of the walls, I can't find much to hold on to. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed and the cylindrical projection is not natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:A nymphaea capensis in Viet Nam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 6:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you, I will try better in the next time.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. It would make a great cover image for a maxipad box, though. Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spotted Sandpiper (non-breeding plumage) (32877802088).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 21:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose I really think the crop needs changing for FP. Charles (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the size and well done --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Blue and green is a very common color palette in landscapes but not something we see all the time in bird photography. -- King of ♠ 02:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not bad, but the crop is too tight. --Hockei (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I just find the background too distracting. Definitely a QI though. Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Ben Arthur, Arrochar Alps, Scotland 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 18:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
  •   Info All by me. It's Ben Arthur, also called The Cobbler, an epic mountain in the Southern Highlands, Scotland. The picture was taken about 20 minutes after sunrise and the light was mesmerizing that morning. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely light, photogenic mountain. I do think your focus is a bit close meaning the distance isn't as sharp as foreground. Btw, did you thread the eye of the needle? I did that as a young teenager. Not a difficult scramble to the top but very very exposed. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sure it was a great experience to be up there, but the shapes aren't doing enough for me for me to consider this a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but the image is not talking to me. I don't believe this one is among our finest, sorry Poco2 06:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I love mountain landscapes. and for me this is a nice picture. But the left side from the middle to the top could have been sharper. The WB. is on the warm side for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:A nymphaea capensis in Vietnam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 17:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Nymphaea
  •   Info A purple waterlily (nymphaea capensis) after a rain in Vietnam, take by me. -- Thanhdien8421 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Displeasing noise at higher resolutions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality is far below FP standards. There are heavy compression artefacts and the left crop cuts off one of the petals.--Peulle (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your idea. This is the first time I take part in this competion, so I've not had many experience yet. I will try to improve it later and I hope you will help me.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't already, you might consider going to COM:Photography critiques for advice, or to COM:QIC, which has relatively tough standards but not as tough as FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Comment It’s a pity that the image quality is low; else, this would be a wonderful image IMHO. --Aristeas (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too low in quality, as per oppose votes. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Stift Wilhering Kirche Orgel 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done Slightly brightened --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive architecture, impressive photo. Not so impressive restoration of the ceiling fresco ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Charles (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support good --67.68.177.192 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great motif and detail, would it be possible to specify in the panorama template how many frames have been used here instead os saying "multiple"? --Poco2 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I wish it were a teeny bit more centered, and that something could be done about all that blue around the window above the altar, but otherwise this is great. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Sella da Ciandepinëi.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Simple composition, great resolution. I like how the shadow emphasizes the mountain massif above. Maybe cropping a bit of the right part would be nice so the bottom of the valley-like shadow is in the middle of the picture. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A sort of magic mountain. I love the textures and shapes of the rock, the road with hairpin curves and everything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Although as Podzemnik says, centering the view on the massif would feel better. --GeXeS (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice but it is tilted in ccw direction, see houses on the left and trees in the middle and on the left, could you fix that? File size IMHO again too big specially considering that the sharpness is just ok (but perfectly understandable for this far shot) Poco2 06:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Beautiful and of very high quality. There are stitching errors at the bottom of the picture (the lines of the cableway are interrupted at two points) but that appears minor given the scale of the scenery. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Highlights on the snow high up could be dimmed, but they're such a small part of the overall image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Amphitheatre Bay after a storm, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 06:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Cyprus (Cyprus doesn't have its section yet)
  •   Info All by me. It's Amphitheatre Bay, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus, about a minute after a storm. You can still see rain in the clouds. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting atmosphere. Could perhaps benefit from a slight brightening. -- King of ♠ 06:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
True true. Thanks for the review, I brightened it up a bit. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely. On brightening, though: The brighter version may look better in isolation, but you're giving something up, which is the atmosphere of an impending thunderstorm. You might consider splitting the difference somewhere between the two versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan, I tried to find a sweet middle spot. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I like it. I also misread "a minute a storm". I thought you meant a minute before a storm, but I see from the file description that it's a minute after a storm, clearly with the sun coming out behind it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hups, I forgot to put the word "after" into the description above. Fixed, thanks for the hint. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin - nuit (Colmar).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 13:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Prefecture of Haut-Rhin at night in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). -- Gzen92 [discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gzen92 [discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm not ready to vote, so I'll just mention what I'm seeing. It's a nice photo, though not huge compared to the building photos we've mostly been considering at FPC lately. Sharpness of the blue-lit areas is not overwhelming. Also, the symmetry is nice, but the building is cropped on both sides. Overall, it's definitely a QI, but I'm unsure it's an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I guess I don't think it's quite an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough subject isolation between the dark parts of the building and the night sky. Try again during blue hour. -- King of ♠ 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Angle makes it look tilted; also not sharp up front. And per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arnsberg-Panorama Herbst 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 09:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •   Info Panoramic view from Ehmsendenkmal over Arnsberg. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Many pixels, but I don't find these houses particularly exciting -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Basile, the way you feel about this is sort of the way I've been feeling about the picture of a highrise development in Jersey City that's nominated further down the page. In this case, the composition works for me, maybe partly because of all the different orientations of the houses and the interspersed greenery. Either way, I do enjoy this, and it's also impressive, as usual from Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. Many pixels do not a picture make. The view is random and the sides are heavily shaded. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- This is a very useful picture for Wikipedia articles on Arnberg, but I'm afraid it does not have a sufficient wow-factor to qualify as a featured picture. With apologies, MartinD (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, although it would probably qualify for both QI and VI. --El Grafo (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. I don't find the shady corners too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile, and some buildings are not straight (bottom, right but also some in the middle-left). I can add notes if you like. Poco2 06:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Marina di Pescara, December 2014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 23:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Is there something I can do to fix it?--Earthh (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You can contact the photographer to request another version modified from the RAW file. Though I'm not sure this will succeed anyway.   Oppose for now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. No, once a JPG is over-exposed, there often isn't much one can do. The composition is rather messy. The mountains are impressive but the foreground is random. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The composition is at least active, and I wouldn't call it completely random - it's framed by 2 masts on either side - but the overexposure is problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I also find the composition crowded.--Peulle (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Overexposed, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bridge over the River Soar, Abbey Park (geograph 4718856).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 17:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fluweelpootje, (Flammulina velutipes), (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 16:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Flammulina velutipes.
  •   Info Enokitake. (Flammulina velutipes). Wet rained little mushrooms (Enokitake) on the dead wood of an elder (Sambucus nigra).
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice, but IMO, a little too grainy to be great. Could you do something about that, if others agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.18.-08-Viernheim--Roter Fingerhut.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Plantaginaceae
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not as good as File:Bloemen en knoppen van Vingerhoedskruid (Digitalis purpurea). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg which shows various stages and the internals of the flower. This is a very common flower so I would expect something special about the specimen or the artistic composition for FP. (Btw, Hockei, "Plants" is a huge FP category, so please help reviewers and closers by locating the section of that page -- I've added Plantaginaceae to the link above). -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I won't assess the other picture mentioned above and I won't let me play off against others. The other picture has a different composition. In my picture the blossoms hanging down and more other details make it interesting such as the colours and the grass in the background. The both pictures are not comparable. --Hockei (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)