Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates

(Redirected from Commons:FPC)
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsEdit

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

PhotographsEdit

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audioEdit

Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominationsEdit

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Adding a new nominationEdit

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

VotingEdit

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use the following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes (or 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that is familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be politeEdit

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:2017.07.06.-30-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Paar bei Eiablage.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 21:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged Damselflies)
  •   Info This is one of my favorite pictures even if you shouldn't like it. I bend over the kayak edge and held the camera very close above the water surface while my wife was trying to keep the kayak in the right position whitout producing waves and disturbing the two of them. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good wow factor and great perspective not seen often for these kind of pictures. Yes, there are the usual pixel blocks/artifacts of this camera I commented on the other nom, but it's not that noticeable here.   Request But, please remove that blue blurred area on the left side. – Lucas 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support FP for me--BoothSift 22:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good story :) I agree with Lucas that removing the blue spot on the left would be good. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Example.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 18:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  •   Info A test by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a TEST IMAGE, for debugging FPCBot please do not add or remove any votes to this test nom. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will be adding some fake votes, please do not take it seriously -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   NeutralDignissim cras tincidunt   Opposelobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui accumsan sit. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Mattis nunc sed blandit libero. Mauris rhoncus aenean vel elit  Oppose scelerisque mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Dolor morbi non arcu risus quis varius quam quisque.  Oppose Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request Ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa.Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination as it's just a test to check the 2n - 1d in the bot DO NOT REMOVE IT FROM THE LIST, OR ARCHIVE IT -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 04:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.06.-29-Grosser Storkower See Storkow (Mark)--Saphirauge-Paar und Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 08:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Sorry, but I often wonder where people take their wisdom to suspect something. There are neither jpg artefacts nor I saved the jpg picture multiple times. I produce my pictures from the raw file. That the DOF is too shallow in your eyes also is not understandable. I used F13. What aperture would you use for more DOF and still get this picture sharp enough? --Hockei (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are certain artifacts/smudgniness and blocks of pixels in your image that seem to be inherent with your camera even after correct processing. Regarding the DoF I'm not saying you could have done any better, sometimes the conditions (positioning of the animals) are unfortunate. I hope this clears it up. – Lucas 10:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see what Lucas means, I used to own a Panasonic camera that made similar blocks of pixels even if processed correctly. It doesn't bother me too much for this picture, which is otherwise a very good and tricky capture. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm wowed. Really good composition and quite interesting, what with the mating on one side and the molting on the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   +1 -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fascinating --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Trillium grandiflorum at the North Walker Woods.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:20:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Order_:_Liliales
  •   Info all by me -- СССР (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not all of the white leaves are rendered sharp, boring centered composition, soft light. A good QI and perhaps VI but not FP to me. – Lucas 07:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is very uninteresting, leaving the flower to land flat on the green leaves. I think the flower is supposed to be white but it looks rather gray. A bit of "analogue editing" such as removing that dry pine needle (or whatever it is) would have been nice too. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas, it's a good QI and a great contribution to the project, but not as interesting as some of our best flower photos. Cmao20 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas--BoothSift 22:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:New Brighton Pier during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 19:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Of course the resolution is great as with all your photos, but there are architecture shots the same size that don't have quite so much visible noise.
  •   Support because I like the subject, but I still would prefer it if the sky had less noise and also if the CA mentioned by King of Hearts were fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please fix CA. Some NR on the sky would also help, per Cmao. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I see a bunch of dust spots at full size, though they're subtle; the most evident ones are near the upper right corner, but there are others. After you fix them (or at least the most evident ones), I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose shadows interfering with the structure and the immediate surroundings are too much for me. The residential buildings in the background also don't help, maybe a different angle to hide them would have been better. – Lucas 07:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Cmao20: @King of Hearts: @Ikan Kekek:@Lucasbosch: Thanks for the review. Fixed CA, dust spots, vignetting and sky-noise. Can't get rid of the houses and shadows, next time I'll use a drone, promise.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better! Cmao20 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's now a weird brown border around the top of the building. Perhaps an artefact of the CA reduction? -- King of ♠ 00:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 17:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info View of River Lima and bridge, in Ponte da Barca, Portugal. Second try (see here, plese). There is nothing wrong with the color space and Hugin is not to blame. Maybe only the blue channel was too close to saturation. I made minor adjustments. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I still like the colours to be honest, I think they're quite effective at conveying the mood. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - The sky was really that aquamarine? And did the clouds look as blotchy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
      Info Apparently, yes. I took several photos in the place and the sky appears more or less like this on the western part. I suppose it is related to near saturation in the blue channel (not to colour temperature) in the presence of those clouds. Please notice how the colours look more natural on the right part of this other photo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. The sky and colors look too green and therefore unnatural to me, in the same way as with the previous nomination for that picture. – Lucas 07:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Aletta Jacobs, 1895-1905.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 06:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • If it were 4 inches, I would vote to feature. I like the portrait, but I'm not sure if it would be sharp enough if it were 8 inches. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I'm afraid I can't tell you more than that. I suppose 8 inches would be oddly large for a photo in a secondary mount, but the number of circular portraits I've seen is... possibly only this one, as they're usually oval, so I don't actually know. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 22:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Stargazer snake eel (Brachysomophis cirrocheilos) (14419490013).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 17:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Ok Eatcha, time for "The Talk" since you are still a bit new here and don't know everything about the FPC system. Please read these posts: Post 1 and Post 2. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cart for notifying me about the problem, but it's actually designed to read any image larger than 150 as an alternative. ∴ any image which is defined smaller than 150 can be used without any problem. Please define them smaller than 150px, it's not a function of actual file size. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, what is written in the Bot description and what is happening in reality are often two very different things since the Bot is malfunctioning on many levels. This little eye is smaller than your little happy guy, even so it caused the Bot to close the nom like this with an "Alt" comment. Do as you wish, I just hope you are not causing any trouble for this nom. --Cart (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually read this in the codes of the bot, but I do not want to mess with this nom. I'm removing it. Will try it on my monkey nom. Thanks for quick reply -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Newton portrait with apple tree.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 09:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • The engraving you found is certainly closer to the one in the nomination. Looking at the curls, necktie and shadows in the that engraving, it might be based on the one I found (1720) since it is just a book illustration of a later date (1878). --Cart (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • didn't "find" the engraving. The file description gives sources for the Newton engraving and the tree engraving. Only the apple is original. I agree that there are similarities (the mouth shape is different) which may indicate it being derivative. The etch marks are nearly identical in the SVG. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I expressed myself in a clumsy way, I apologize. --Cart (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't understand why sky in the left side of the tree is black but on the other side is white. The reproduction in SVG can't have been trivial but there is less detail than the original, especially where the dark area of hair has effectively been crushed to solid black. One other problem with the montage is that Newton is lit from the left, the tree is lit from the front-right and the apple from the front. The apple just seems randomly placed. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The composition, light, placing of apple, partial heavy frame and everything is well within the artistic freedom and style of Art Nouveau. Nothing wrong with it, I only question if this work is original enough to be FP. Looking at the style of the creator, I'd also guess that the tree is borrowed from some other work. --Cart (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes only the apple is original. I guess it just doesn't work for me :-). It also isn't clear to me why one would want to emulate an etching in SVG rather than create a more realistic image. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Atrists, artists, artists... strange bunch of people with strange ideas, you know.   --Cart (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Tukuche Village-0660.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 08:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
  •   Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia- nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I was surprised to be drawn into this photo. The lazy afternoon everyday scene with that stunning background makes it all somewhat surreal. The vanishing point lines are very nice with the bike accentuating it all. --Cart (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The mountains and the clouds are beautiful, but the poles and the wires ruin the picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree with Cart about the composition, but the sharpness could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have applied a tiny bit of Smart Sharpness to the photo, please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well, Thank you--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It looks very busy. The poles and the motorcycle are disturbing. The eye is witching from one point to the other. --XRay talk 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The scenery is very nice due to the mountains, but the quality isn't quite QI level, sorry. --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Btw, other photographer in EXIF data? Bijay, how do you explain that? --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This one as I am not sure if I want to support or oppose it--BoothSift 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per XRay and A.Savin – Lucas 07:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Boothsift:,@Lucasbosch:, @XRay:,@A.Savin:, Please have a look review once again. Actually at that time i don't have my own dslr so i borrowed that camera from my friend. And i forgot to change the Exif Detail of this photograph. Here's (112073005685) the serial number of the camera that I used earlier which is similar to the serial number (112073005685) of this photograph. File:Tukche, Nepal-WLV-1449.jpg --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Something like that was my guess too. Note that I opposed not because of the EXIF data, but because of the missing sharpness. --A.Savin 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    The reason for my vote is the composition, not the EXIF data. Sorry. --XRay talk 10:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per XRay and A.Savin -- Karelj (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose Cart has it right about the juxtaposition here between the mundane and the sublime. However the sharpeness one wants in an FP just isn't there. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Sepia smithi.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 03:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Landscape with stormy clouds and a pirogue on the Mekong at golden hour in Si Phan Don.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 03:01:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Clouds would fit also, but Natural gathers several elements, and that's more a landscape for me. Concerning the shadow, reducing the intensity with Lightroom would work but I prefer not to alter the reality. The boat is in the light. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral the big shadow is the only thing keeping me from supporting, per Podzemnik. I've added a note for a crop suggestion that makes it more powerful as the lower half of the image is much brighter that way and the boat seems to be escaping into the light instead of under another dark cloud. – Lucas 06:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Beautiful landscape and great mood but the big shadow unfortunately spoils it for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a truly awesome scene, in the original sense of the word, and I love the shadow, which creates contrast high and low with the bright part. I find myself thinking of Romantic landscape compositions. Great capture of a moment! I hope you weren't utterly drenched a minute later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I escaped under a tree, during approx 15 minutes. Thanks for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish I was there --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems great to me, a really dramatic scene. Cmao20 (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 15:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 16:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop the shadow at the bottom if you want, but it's still powerful enough. One of Basile's best Laos pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).pngEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 23:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
  •   Info created by unknown- uploaded by US National Archives bot - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Hi. The identification of this photo is incomplete, so I cannot judge the photo yet. From https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305488, the link that is given in the file description: "These records are manuscript watercolor views along the northwest boundary between the Rocky Mountains and Point Roberts. The sketches were created by James W. Alden who accompanied the survey party that, during the 1860's and in compliance with the Treaty of 1846, was responsible for recording characteristics of the northwestern boundary of the United States." This information is also provided there: "Specific Media Type: Paper". So "Author" is not "Unknown or not provided" but James W. Alden, and the medium must be specified as "Watercolor on paper". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can you examine the NARA template properties and set the appropriate parameter to remove the "Please do not overwrite this file" warning -- this is a restoration file, rather than an original. Also the "This file was provided to" licence text isn't correct for this file either, since this file is a derivative. What makes you think the original backing paper was neutral grey, and the painting from 1850s on pure Xerox white copy paper? Look at the white swirling cloud on the right and the leftmost edge of it. In the original, the artist has given the cloud a bright white "silver lining" but in your restoration it is a cold blue tint. I think it is one thing to repair damage but quite another to change the colours of an artwork, without any reference. It will have yellowed/aged over the years, but is unlikely to have been a modern white. Also I don't understand why the border has got slim black/transparent triangles -- it's as though you rotated the whole image after cropping. But the original border/background paper is huge so the background can be cut square. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support now, thanks very much. -- Colin (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretfully, I agree with Colin, but I would go back to the original and see whether a more subtle restoration is possible that's a little more true to the original. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Very good now, thanks.   Support clearly. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Redone, only removed dust spots Ezarateesteban 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment - That seems to look better, and you should ping those who voted. And you fixed the problems I laid out above. But what's with this notice in Metadata? "Copyright (C) reserved" Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The metadata and the copyright is copied from the original that was uploaded as PD so it isn't an issue IMHO
@Cmao20: @Colin: @Ikan Kekek: Ezarateesteban 13:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't it an issue for the metadata to contradict the copyright status? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"Copyright (C) reserved" Who reserved that copyright? It may added by the camera. Furthermore the artwork is made is made between 1857-1862 so is in PD in USA. There is nothing to doubt about copyright Ezarateesteban 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
OK.   Support, but that notice should be deleted, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 19:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Well he should have just went along with it, not try to own the image or whatever he did. --BoothSift 06:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing against your compassion for the photographer, but in my opinion we should only judge the photograph itself and not the story behind it. – Lucas 06:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Destroyed a photographer's life"? You must be joking. Actually he certainly made a huge amount of money selling this to whoever wanted it. This whole story was just a very successful marketing scam. Why do you think PETA claimed a copyright on it? For the animal's welfare? Ha! Ha! Ha! Regards, Yann (talk)
  •   Support I'd love to see the monkey to hold the copyright though. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin Falbisoner and per nom 2015
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada (talk • contribs) 07:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm just not wowed by this regardless of who took it. People are handing cameras to animals or strapping them on them just to see what happens; there are whole TV shows based on the concept. All you get are tilted snapshots that are amusing for a short while. It's a sideshow fad. --Cart (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is pretty much a good picture. Sometimes humans don't manage to get so nice shots. The eyes are in focus, it is not blurry, the facial expression is awesome. The DoF is a bit narrow, but considering the distance, certainly a corrected version would get a chance as FP if it was nominated by a regular photographer. This picture is of good quality, it is a striking portrait, the monkey looks curious, smiling and surprised, that's what makes it great IMO. Because it is a selfie, it means the animal is 100% natural in its environment, not distracted by humans, just captivated by its "game". And that is special -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of good quality photos that doesn't wow me and this is one of them. Btw, it's debated weather the facial expressions of monkeys and apes show the same emotions as those of humans. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Really ? Awesome, that might be one of them :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and judging just the image I would say: insufficient DoF --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I've changed my view on this image over the years. I think what PETA did and what Wikimania did with the image was disgraceful and disrespectful, but PETA lawsuit aside, I don't buy the claim it destroyed his career. It looks like the photographer (like most) didn't have a particularly great career to begin with and is bitter that taking a viral photo didn't change things for the better. He claims he's "lost £10,000" but that's speculation about what he might have earned, not money he actually had and lost. If the 30 minutes of monkeying-around with his camera hadn't produced the "money selfie" he'd have been the same broke photographer he says he is now. The claim to fame is that it is entirely a "monkey selfie" whereas David's claim to ownership is that he engineered the situation. His story now is that he was attempting to photograph the apes as they groomed and played with him, but discovered they would play with the camera if he sat next to it, holding the tripod. If instead of being a "selfie", David had pressed the button as an ape gazed at her reflection in the glass, it wouldn't have been a "selfie" and not have gone viral. The whole magic of the photo is the "what's the chance of that?" and "what a clever ape!" reactions. Being a professional photographer is about consistently satisfying the client with great photos and being relied upon to do so next time, not one single photo created by a chance encounter in 30 mins. A look at David's website suggests this photo is the only thing that separates him from any other wildlife photographer who runs workshops to make a living. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe, maybe not, who knows for sure. In any case I don't want commons to turn into a platform that pinches material from creators who don't consent or share their work voluntarily under a cc license. That's the main reasoning behind my opposing vote. The image actually might even warrant an FP status. It's striking, popular, well known & well done. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with not pinching material, but the raison d'être for this image is that the ape is the "creator" and it was a wild chance encounter rather than a trained animal. If David had creative input into the work, then it isn't a "monkey selfie", and no different to any other (of many) photos of these apes grinning. But if the ape is the creator then they don't get copyright. Neither do US Gov employees, whether they consent voluntarily or not. I don't think David can have it both ways. I think it quite rational to oppose for the reasons you give. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a striking image yes, but not the work of the owner of the camera. Otherwise you can claim to be the artist when someone just borrows your material, after publishing their shots in newspapers. Is that "your work" ? No. You just bought the camera, and expect to become millionnaire because someone talented pushed the button. In this case, the talented subject is a monkey, and legally there's no ownership for this species (fortunately or unfortunately, but in any case the owner of the camera would not be the artist). So, for now, this picture is like the work of someone who took a shot of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum and claims to be the owner of the work. We just say "This painting is in the public domain", that's not "yours", it belongs to Da Vinci. But you engage lawyers and absolutely want to sell your photo of the Mona Lisa. Well, sorry that's your problem, there are laws. And now if you can't pay the attorneys, you're a bit responsible too. Maybe you can expect recognition for your work (go visiting the macaques in Indonesia), but only the fair part, not the extra part (means not this lucky selfie). That is public domain. Your story and the camera belong to you, you were not forced to publish anything, now the picture belongs to everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think your comparison with photographing a PD artwork is valid. Copyright law is what it is, there is no logic to it, and the law is pretty settled in the US at least. The thing is, if David had set his camera up with an intervalometer to take a pic every few seconds, or had rigged a trigger trap to detect an ape walking by, or had remotely triggered the shutter when the ape pulled a funny face, he'd have full copyright of the image, but it would not have gone viral: it wouldn't be a "selfie". That's the claim he's chosen to make, and if you take him at his word that the ape took the photo, then he loses rights to the image. If instead, he engineered the photo, then his claim is a fraud, and he'd still not be entitled to his £10,000. -- Colin (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What is not valid is to claim the ownership of something free, or the artwork belonging to someone else. Not really a strange law in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. All the backstory issues aside, the photo honestly doesn't wow me at all. It seems gimmicky and doesn't appeal to me, it's interesting as a novelty but the novelty wears off very quickly. Cmao20 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A snapshot by a monkey. Funny for one look but not a FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Berthold Werner, sorry. --A.Savin 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Berthold.--Ermell (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An animal shot a featured picture candidate? --Neptuul (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not if a monkey handle the drone :) --Neptuul (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A human opposing a monkey picture candidate? --Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose novelty shot just not that good and agree Martin. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my support  Neutral per Martin -- Piotr Bart (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info This image can f*ck up this nom but I will try it, you can hold me responsible even block me for a day for any mishap. IMO, the codes are fine -   --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, as long as we know that it is a test of the Bot tasks/functions, it is ok.   --Cart (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose C-M (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support no less than I did four years ago. Between actually not being that bad and its historic interest, I see an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Cecile McLorin Salvant.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 14:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded by Jean-Pierre Dodel, Miami6205 - nominated by S. DÉNIEL - Portrait de la chanteuse de Jazz, Cécile McLorin Salvant.
  •   Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A very radical photo, totally saved by the presence of her hand and the way both she and the background sparkle. This photo is also kinder to her pores and there is less CA. Btw, are you sure the copyright for this is ok? --Cart (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Unconventional style and very featureable because of it. It carries a personality. – Lucas 17:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ——Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support To give a little critique, the background in the hand area is a bit disturbing. But good enough, I think. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't know what to make of this photo? I am not opposing, but I'm a bit unsure what to think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Some technical issues, but I like the composition. --XRay talk 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting composition, but it does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with half head? Seven Pandas (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per 7 Pandas and Wolfgang Poco2 15:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow , nohing extra... -- Karelj (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:20110102-Cecile-429 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 14:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded by Jean-Pierre Dodel, Miami6205 - nominated by S. DÉNIEL - Portrait de la chanteuse de Jazz, Cécile McLorin Salvant.
  •   Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even if the photo is artistic, having a cut eye is not a good crop. --Cart (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the other one has more action, better crop and a more interesting background. – Lucas 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yeah, this one could be good if her eye weren't cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Vulphere 15:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because there is no way it could overcome this many opposes 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Amazon Kingfisher (27012341489).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 23:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately they voted twice--Boothsift (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, mistake. Thanks for removing the vote.--Ermell (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per A.Savin, the background is a bit disturbing Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect but overall pretty good. Cmao20 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 15:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, although I agree with the idea of cropping the darker right out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per A.Savin, the background.... -- Karelj (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Bighorn Sheep - Kananaskis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 17:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dlieja Sacun apostul apsis a man dreta.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 16:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Nevertheless, if you know the year of composition, add it to the file description. If not, I think it's sufficiently explanatory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I hope it's acceptable to oppose just because I find him ugly. – Lucas 17:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - IMO, yes, because that goes to "no wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you’d support it, I should say the world is coming to its end. He might be ugly, but to me he is cosy and this fresco imho is ways, ages, miles more beautiful than this junk (pardon me!) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Easy! He said he found the man depicted ugly, not that he found your photograph ugly for any other reason. In my humble opinion, it would be best if you backed off and tried not to make this personal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment In fact, I din't mean the photos but the objects --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So describing the things I photograph as junk is fair game, but any timid comment against the unquestionable beauty of anything in front of your lens is sacrilege, of course ... Nur die Ruhe, whatever I write it's only one vote of many and not worth this amount of bickering. – Lucas 10:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A fine image of an important motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Eberstein Schlossberg 1 Schloss SO-Ansicht 07052019 6952.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 15:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dominant tule elk bull, Point Reyes National Seashore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 14:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Don't worry, you get off easy, I get all the IKEA banter and not just about living rooms...:-D --Cart (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria Wörth Pfarrkirche hll. Primus und Felizian und Rosenkranzkirche ONO-Ansicht 06052019 6767.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 06:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I know. But I only had the 70-200mm lens mounted. In position 70mm. And I was on top of a ship, that was moving towards the subjects. Sorry! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You could at least crop out the rest of that house on the right, though that doesn't address the problems with the left crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice juxtaposition of the three towers and I don't mind the crop; the cut elements are too small in frame. – Lucas 08:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tower-church-church works well. But surely the tower has a name too that could be added to the description. Crop is fine, cropping out the house on the right would give the church (and final house) too little space and unbalance the image. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice!--BoothSift 22:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I dissent. The crops left and right disturb me too much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support something to the right might be a bit more balanced.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support although the light is not optimal --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support knowing the location with the vantage point on the water I find it (mainly in the context of Wikipedia) a bit misleading to not include at least a bit of the water. Still a nice picture. C-M (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish the sky was better, but the angle is great all the same. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Sun over Lake Hawea, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 00:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
  •   Info All by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fairly simple effect - a strong diagonal set of beams - but very striking. Daniel likes to talk about memes; I could easily see this being used for religious memes, as people tend to associate sun rays in an otherwise mostly dark sky with the divine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I can practically hear the celestial choir doing its oohs and aaahs over these crepuscular rays to end all crepuscular rays ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:View of the old bridge over Main in Wurzburg 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 21:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info View of the old bridge over the Main in Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany. The city of Würzburg is well-known for its lavish baroque and rococo architecture, much of which was painstakingly reconstructed after having been destroyed in WWII. I thought this was a pretty good cityscape - sharp, colourful and shows off the city well. Created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There's a dust spot in the sky near the right margin. Otherwise, I share your appreciation for this picture and will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, you are quite right, it is fixed now. I have also fixed another dust spot in the sky in the middle of the image. Tournasol7, sorry for editing your picture but I think I have done an OK job of it; feel free to revert if you'd rather do it yourself. Cmao20 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmao20; Don't worry. Thank you for this nomination and for editing my image too! Tournasol7 (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak Oppose The scene has FP potential, but here the large dark shadows covering the crowds are too distracting for me – Lucas 08:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The scene has potential but the light is rather uninspiring. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flat light, per Cart (also rather busy). Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Bath Abbey Eastern Stained Glass, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 21:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info The stained glass and altar at the eastern end of Bath Abbey in Somerset, England. The church was founded in the seventh century and rebuilt in the twelfth and sixteenth centuries; the stained glass depicted is a late-Victorian addition. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Of course! This is magnificent work. However, since FP search as usual is not working, I'm not seeing if there are any FPs of this abbey's interior already. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, There is only one other FP of Bath Abbey, this one, which is taken in the opposite direction to the one I've nominated, and is more focussed on showing the fan-vaulted ceiling rather than the stained glass. I made sure that was the only one by looking through the entire religious building interiors category (or at least the UK section). Cmao20 (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Cog wheel on a huge crane claw - 1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 19:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
  •   Info One of my slightly odd photos. I have to admit that I'm totally biased wrt this, since I'm always moved by big old machinery. I can't help thinking about the lousy working conditions of the men operating them and how their families depended on these tools working to keep food on the table. I will certainly not be offended if you don't see what I see. Btw, no LUT or anything, just "shadows and rust". ;-) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Now that you show it to me, I think I do see what you saw, but it's a tribute to your power of observation and imagination that you saw it when you chose to photograph it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent sharp detailed photo and those kind of images I don't see often on Commons --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I very much agree with you about the reasons old machinery carries an emotional interest. Excellent photo and unusual for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--BoothSift 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I can smell this – Lucas 08:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 11:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart strikes again ... the detail here is fine in every sense. I also love the blue-orange contrast you've talked about so much. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the detail and the colours. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 21:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects#Machines

File:2017.07.04.-17-Scharmuetzelsee-Bad Saarow--Nebelkraehe.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 18:08:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think most of us are probably not accustomed to think of crows as beautiful - intelligent, loud, interested/interesting, but not beautiful. However, this bird is truly beautiful, with all those slightly purplish blue feathers on its back and tail. The black head could stand to be more brightly lit, but I think this is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Possibly a tad oversharpened? Otherwise good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. Crows are one of the most underrated birds. --BoothSift 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a closer crop at the top would make the crow look even more magnificent, but that's (probably) just me. --Cart (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The eyes / head shall stay close to the center. Especially when you zoom into the picture. Also the plants heads in the background would be cut off. The crop is right as it is IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 21:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)

File:Zaadpluizen grote lisdodde (Typha latifolia). (d.j.b.).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 05:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment @Lucasbosch: Thank you for your comment. I could not find your note. I myself have found something in the lower left corner and removed it. Hopefully you meant that.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Famberhorst, you fixed one of the two, I've marked the other one. I'm wondering if your monitor is set up right if you don't see this one by yourself. – Lucas 19:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really wowed by it, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Didn't expect to support at first, but the detail at full-res is quite interesting and the sharpness is perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support A bit per Peulle--BoothSift 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle – Lucas 11:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. To be blunt, if I didn't know what it was I'd think it was a turd on a stick. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Kerspetalsperre (31858950837).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 21:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Markus Trienke - uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by B2Belgium -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I would support this immediately if the tree on the left was not cropped so badly. Ruins the overall great composition. The rest is perfect. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jakub – Lucas 07:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Jakub. -- King of ♠ 02:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Compositionally it grows on you, but while I'm OK with the tree at left, the unsharp forest at right is a different matter. Also, do we need so much sky? See suggested crop. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Groove and needle in close embrace from beginning to end.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 20:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • +1 otherwise great. --Cart (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I will support, too, once Franz van Duns specifies the make and model of the turntable, or at least the tonearm (and the stylus if it's a different brand). I think that's relevant if anyone wants to use such a great closeup of a tonearm and stylus in a reference article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info My, I'm flabbergasted! A nomination as featured candidate just 10+ months after joining Wiki Commons. Yes, of course, I will provide all the requested information in due time. First of all, it is a Technics SL-120 turntable, purchased by a friend's father in the late 1970-ies. Second: the pick-up cartridge is a Shure V-15 type III Stereo Dynetic Phonograph Cartridge (now corrected), and together with the record player and a stash of exquisitely preserved classical records I also acquired a spare cartridge in an elegantly fashioned box. Third: I'll also try to find out the brand of the J-shaped tonearm. Finally: of course, I could easily remove the tiny dark triangle at lower right, or even make a fully sharp image of the currently blurred white knobs in the foreground by including a vastly greater number of images in the focus stack, but after having given thought to this matter (and others) I decided proactively to preserve these features. Why? When viewed at full resolution these supposedly distracting "kinks" just vanish in my eye. But, as King of Hearts noticed, it is not alone in my eye, but in the wiki user's to decide what is agreeable and appropriate at standard wiki viewing sizes. Phew, it is very late now in Germany - I'll muse over this matter tomorrow. Great thanks for your support!
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz van Duns (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Thanks, Franz, and welcome to FPC! Please sign your post (type 4 tildes [~] in a row), and also, please add the information about the turntable, tonearm and stylus to the file description on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cuz why not--BoothSift 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Like the detail and DoF. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The level of blur in the foreground is unpleasant -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request Franz, per above, the make and model should get included on the file page, and also any major manipulations or double exposures should be mentioned. The image shows two tonearms, it should be made clear that the real thing only has one (if that's the case). – Lucas 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It was getting really, really late and I made a few mistakes and omissions which I shall now correct. This "double-headed" image was explicitly created by me as a tongue-in-cheek entry for the somewhat whimsical Wiki Commons Photo challenge/2019 - April - Beginning and end, thus the contorted title "Groove and needle in close embrace from beginning to end" and the deliberately almost poetical description text related to the stylus' movement from, well, beginning to end. As conspicuously noted in a frame below the summary box on the image page it is composed as a focus stack of 20 images (to be precise I took two focus stacks, one with the cartridge on the left and the other after carefully having lifted the cartridge to the right. These two stacks were subsequently merged). Focus stacking is mandatory to achieve a great depth of detail in macroscopic regions, but also works just as well for larger objects. When I participated in the above mentioned competition last month I assumed that the concise information I had provided would suffice for that purpose. I now see a certain conflict concerning the demands for (a) a contest entry versus (b) an unexpected nomination for featured picture status. For this reason I will momentarily refrain from altering the image during the current voting period, given that I have already been awarded 2 stars for exactly this version and will not replace it by one of the two focus stacks it is based on, but, as Lucas suggests, I will duly add some extra facts to the text. By the way, the pick-up arm is a SME model 3009 series II improved. Thanx for all your comments. I am willing to learn from you all, as a community. Franz van Duns (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Franz van Duns, per Ikan's and Lucas' comments above, could you please add the technical info, as well as the part about the double exposure, you have given us here to the |description= part of the file info on the file's page. This page will be archived in 9 days and the info needs to accompany the file for all users to see in a convenient way. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. The file description should now adequately reflect the technical background both of the depicted object and the major steps entailed towards the final image. Franz van Duns (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile – Lucas 11:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blending two images like this does not work for me, at least not from this angle --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Worth the attempt, but ultimately doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Tetlin, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-24, DD 65-68 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 20:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Reflexions in the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poco2 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely mood. And no stitching errors this time   Cmao20 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are you sure about the FP cat? This could very well belong in Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections. I also feel it would be more harmonious without the last bit right. See note. --Cart (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I would also support the version of the photo that Cart prefers, but I find the variation on the right more interesting than not having it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me --BoothSift 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite uninteresting in my view. Neither the grey sky nor the dark silhouette are really special -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing besides the reflection. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, I can't get into the mood with this. And there's an obnoxious white box littered on the shore.Lucas 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it would work better if the right part was cropped out (as suggested by Cart) + the island would be exactly in the center. Now there is more space for the reflection than the clouds. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support although I agree with Cart's proposed crop. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light isn't very nice. Not special enough. Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Christian Ferrer. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Roque de los Muchachos - ORM - LST-1 - 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 18:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I get the feeling there is a better angle from which to capture this structure and how it works, one that shows less of the—to me—not photogenic maintenance buildings and access ladders and the green fence. Maybe also showing more of the natural environment. As it is this doesn't wow me and feels too ordinary photographically. There is a good compositional element in this, though, the strong diagonal towards the upper right edge, but there's not quite enough lead room for that to make it work. – Lucas 19:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect per Lucas, but the subject is very interesting and I think it deserves a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is having nerd-me sitting up and take notice, salivating. I think that equals wow. --Cart (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great photograph to me, of a much more sophisticated version of a tinker toy construction by brilliant adult engineers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 01:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It has some halos in the center and upper part of the structure, can you fix it? --Cvmontuy (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done --Llez (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now because it is tilted. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done See the fence door at the left corner --Llez (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      •   Support now --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Buddha Amitabha in His Pure Land of Suvakti.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 11:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Llez: This is certainly not perfectly rectangular. From the right side, it seems to be tilted CCW. But from the bottom, it seems to be tilted CW. And from the left side and the top, it seems OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:A member of the ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service) serving with a 3.7-inch anti-aircraft gun battery, December 1942. TR452.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 11:15:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Malindine E G (Lt), Tanner (Lt), War Office official photographer, uploaded by Ducksoup, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support As a tribute to the roles women have played in the Second World War. I didn't even know that women had such an active role. -- Yann (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive. The Auxiliary Territorial Service, by the way, was entirely female, and any single or married British woman aged between 17 and 43 was allowed to volunteer for it. So this was quite a common thing; over 640000 women overall served in the ATS and other auxiliary services, mostly in air defence tasks as pictured here. Cmao20 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Historical importance aside, photographically this is lacking. The composition with her pose and sightline crossing the gun looks just silly to me and it feels not enough background is included to provide good context. The large shadow below her left shoulder is distracting. – Lucas 13:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--BoothSift 00:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Works for me, and I think there is enough background in the file description to sufficiently understand what she and we are looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Historic value, and pretty good color and detail for that time IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Berchtesgaden 50 Pfg 1920.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 06:16:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info Issued by the Town of Berchtesgaden (1920) reproduced from an original specimen, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05
  •   Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. The post-processing is too obvious: the outer edges of the pieces of paper look natural on some sides, but others—especially on the right—were just cut off digitally and we’re left with extremely sharp lines. – Lucas 06:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful and an FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral since we already have a few similar pictures in the category now.--Peulle (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I really hate to say it, but the copyright status is unclear as the {{PD-GermanGov-currency}} tag does not apply. This is not a "unit of currency issued by Germany". It was neither issued by a "German federal or state authority" nor by a "predecessor state" but by the Town of Berchtesgaden. It's old enough for {{PD-US-expired}} but that doesn't cover the copyright status in the country of origin. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see what Lucas means but personally I don't find it a major fault. Hopefully copyright concerns can be resolved. Cmao20 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportMartin Falbisoner (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Estufa principal do Jardim Botânico de Curitiba 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 May 2019 at 10:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created and uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 10:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 10:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even though it is in a botanical garden, the building looks too small compared to the flower bed in the foreground. Flowers rarely look good in dusky or dark photos. --Cart (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's OK for me, I like the contrast between the red building and the blueish sky. Cmao20 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This one per Cart but I still don't want to oppose it yet. --BoothSift 22:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - No wow for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the background buildings and objects to the left and right of the main building are too distracting – Lucas 06:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. --Yann (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, too --Llez (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not just per Cart. I can understand why the photographer wanted to use a long exposure; however I think it outsmarted itself. The building looks like it's on fire or about to melt, probably not the desired effect, and the clouds are distracting. The whole effect is of a photograph that doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the "photographer" (Rodrigo) here, well I pretty much now what I want, and what I want when I grow up... nothing that matters to this evaluation.
But, just to explain for the others, first it was dark and this is a Kiss X7, a noisy entry level camera, so long exposure was a necessity.
Second, I wanted more DOF, without stacking a lot of photos (also because of the next reason)
And finally, the most important, to remove the people around the building, that you even notice, but they were a lot, I mean a lot:i.e., i.e., of people, especially in the light events.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, you misunderstood Daniel. He is talking about the photo growing up, not you. It is a metaphor that can easily get "lost in translation". --Cart (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Fátima bint Musa, Qom, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 14.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 May 2019 at 08:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Bottom view of the iwan of the main entrance of Fatima Masumeh Shrine, Qom, Iran. The burial site dates from beginning of the 17th century in times of shah Abbas the Great. Qom is a very crowded pilgrimage location and is considered by Shia Muslims to be the second most sacred city in Iran after Mashhad. All by me, Poco2 08:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice quality. Cmao20 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The recording is too restless for me, Sorry.--Fischer.H (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Majestic --Gnosis (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--BoothSift 22:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine architecture! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seems slightly tilted, although in different directions depending on what part of the image you're looking at. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the way these modern lamps are sticking out from the historic facade is not pleasant for me – Lucas 07:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - You're saying a view of this iwan is unfeaturable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan, no. Regretfully, from this low perspective, the modern lamps don't fit in and stick out visually, but from another angle they wouldn't be so prominent and wouldn't be a problem. I oppose because of visual disturbance, not because of the existence of modern appendages. – Lucas 21:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Paysandisia archon MHNT Dos Vif Fronton.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 May 2019 at 05:41:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Butterflies are alive and very capricious! By shooting at F25-29 you are sure to have a good quality image, with diffractions. At F7-10 you have a very beautiful image but if it moves it will be fuzzy and if it does not move you will have a lot of areas that will be out of depth of field. In this case, the distortions have been corrected. The iridescence on the butterflies are all natural.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Diffraction softness. – Lucas 08:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This insect is only 90-110 mm, so I feel impelled to support because of the excellent level of detail relative to size, and also the fine composition, without prejudice to the discussion on diffraction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In fact he did not move! I had time to catch it, it was entrusted to the entomologists of the MHNT where it was naturalized and it is part of the collections. The palm was slaughtered along with 5 others. The infection is still in progress but it is contained without the need for further slaughter. Thanks to Boothsift (talk · contribs) for this nomination --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I wish it didn't have that diffraction, but if that was the only one to get an image without motion blur, then so be it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

John Cotton's NotebookEdit

Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 12:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Animals
  •   Info created by John Cotton/ State Library of Victoria - uploaded by Pigsonthewing - nominated by Pigsonthewing -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Additional info "44 images (samples below above) of sketches of the birds of the Port Phillip District, NSW, Australia, made in the notebook of the ornithologist John Cotton between 1844 and his death in 1849. Kudos to the State Library of Victoria, who have digitised these and made these high-resolution tiffs freely available, recognising that no copyright in them exists." per Andy Mabbett's comment on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support High value.--Peulle (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Are we to understand that you are in fact nominating the entire notebook, since you have that title on the nom as well as the "samples" in your comment? If an image is to be integrated into the FP system, every image need to be included in the nomination, not just a few samples. All the images will be examined individually, and all of them needs to hold the FP standard in order for the set to be promoted. It's a pretty tall order with 44 images... but if so, you need to withdraw this nom and create a new one with all the images. One of the now active users who have made similar large batch noms is Adam Cuerden, perhaps he can give you a few pointers. I have also changed the FP category since "Animals/Birds" is for species photos of birds; these are paintings with several families on some pages. --Cart (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • [ec] I am indeed nominating all 44 files in Category:John Cotton's Notebook. I think they're all worthy of the status, but I'm sure the community can decide whether to pass all or just some of them. I thought that showing all 44 would make the page too slow to load, but at your suggestion have now added them above - there's no point restarting the poll, as only User:Peulle has expressed a preference.
      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  •   Comment These are very good, but I think for them to qualify as a set nomination we'd need to nominate all of them rather than a fairly random selection. I would support if we had a nomination with all the images. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Based on the clarification that we are indeed considering the entire notebook. Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as not any single page considered by itself is FP-worthy for me and being a complete set should not lower standards. On the reproduction side, the resolution is far too low to appreciate any details. The Phase One P 45 this is captured with has 39 MP but here not even half of that is left (deep crop or—most likely—a downscale for the web archive).
    Basic leveling correction and better cropping around the pages is needed. I have a suspicion that pages laying underneath could be leaking through and these pages are visible on the edges poking out (especially that green sticker). Each page should have been folded to be separate. Some pages should be turned vertically because the drawing and text demands it.
    On the artwork itself: one page doesn't even contain any drawings, only text. Some pages have their drawings not colored in but in an earlier draft stage and a lot of pages have a mix of drafts and fully colored birds and their environment. Only the pages with fully colored drawings, in full resolution and some minor corrections done (see above) would get my support. – Lucas 21:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Before I would even consider some of these paintings and their texts for FP, I would like to have transcriptions of the text on the file pages, identifying what birds are depicted and what the text says about them. Perhaps with accompanying files where the texts are identified in some way similar to these hand painted Canton maps by a Swedish cartographer (also made in the age of the explorers), that I transcribed and translated some time ago: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Old documents like these should be as comprehensive and correctly presented as possible for FPs. --Cart (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've looked at only a few of the photos so far, but the ones I looked at were FPs to me, so I'd expect to support a set nomination if the transcriptions Cart refers to were made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lot of work here, but I do agree with Lucas, Poco2 23:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So many of these pages would not be featured if they were nominated separately (example). Orientation is clearly wrong for 9 of them. Normal historical documents including poor sketches. Ugly black frames -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very good arguments about the orientations and some of the sketches. This is not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We can't avoid the back border. Orientation is not an issue for me. As for the quality, we also need to consider the book as a whole. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Different solutions exist to avoid these heavy and unaesthetic black borders. Either you insert a white sheet of paper behind your document when you scan or when you shoot (like this), or you make fine crops with clean restorations of the corners of each page (like this). In both cases, you get elegant images when you download and print afterwards -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the above discussions--BoothSift 05:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The book is really valuable, useful and pretty, but I don't think that FP are about featuring whole books. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik and my comment about the texts above. Basile also has a point wrt how to present the pages. This whole nom seems like a job less than half done. --Cart (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik and others. -- Colin (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the above discussions. Vulphere 14:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal.jpg (delist and replace)Edit

Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 05:22:46
   

  •   Info Better quality and larger frame. For such a historical picture, it is better to keep it as close to the original as possible. In the previous nomination, several people said that this version is better. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Yann (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Per my comments on the previous nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace for the reasons stated in the previous nomination. – Lucas 08:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Per above. --BoothSift 17:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Per above. --Cayambe (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace p.a. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace . Vulphere 14:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Pemahat Patung Asmat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 05:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moving to   Neutral per below--BoothSift 22:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is clearly tilted. I don't mind the perspective distorsions, but here the ground should be horizontal. Including this overexposed window in the composition was not a good idea, another angle would have been better. Also the foreground is excessively blurry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Original and nice motif, but along with the tilt the overexposed area is significant and annyoing (a perspective correction would indeed help there), the top crop is suboptimal and there is no single category Poco2 07:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. --Cayambe (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. Vulphere 14:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

File:WhatOurGirlsAreDoing.pngEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 02:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.