Commons:Featured picture candidates

(Redirected from Commons:FPC)
Shortcut
COM:FPC
This project page in other languages:
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, 2019, 2020 and current month.

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

Formal things

Nominating

Guidelines for nominators

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 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 color/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 color 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 documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, 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 description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

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). 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, color, 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.
  • Color is important. Over saturated colors 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 color AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color 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 better 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 audio

Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates.

Set nominations

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).

Simple tutorial for new users

Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC
How to nominate in 8 simple steps
STEP 1


STEP 2


STEP 3


STEP 4


STEP 5


STEP 6


STEP 7


STEP 8

NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you.


Adding a new nomination

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}}

Strongly recommended: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports

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

Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters.

Voting

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 candidates

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 a 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 policy

General rules

  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 rules

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 when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be polite

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 also

Table of contents

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.

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

Featured picture candidates

File:Meridian Idaho Temple.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 May 2021 at 20:05:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Our Lady church in Marvejols 25.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 May 2021 at 13:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lac de Montriond 06.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 May 2021 at 13:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Uitlopende bladknop van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus). 18-04-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 May 2021 at 05:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mohammad Helal Ali امامزاده هلال ابن علی 04.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 20:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Iran
  •   Info created by Mostafameraji - uploaded by Mostafameraji - nominated by Shiasun -- Shiasun (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Shiasun (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent image under difficult lighting conditions. Would make the first night-time image in the gallery Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Iran. @Mostafameraji: Will be useful to add an English translation of the Description and Caption. --Tagooty (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Travia, Saeed Toosi a prominent Qur'an reciter and alleged child sexual abuser is seen in this picture! --Gnosis (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment As things stand, I'm at least slightly inclined to oppose, in spite of the great content, because of photo quality issues. In particular, the magenta chromatic aberration on the near right minar should be eliminated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The perspective correction is not done properly, leaving the central verticals and all the horizontal tilted. The magenta/green CA is also prominent on all the books. --Cart (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wonderful view, strong CAs in many places. (Yes, I am the 3rd one saying this, but the CAs really spoil the photo IMHO, sorry, this is why I repeat it.) --Aristeas (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Fixed I have removed as much CA as possible (automatic and manual), you have to have a very light touch because of all the lights in green and magenta (corrections are prone to spill over), and tweaked the perspective. Made in two steps in case someone thinks these are too big adjustments for overwrites, please revert if you think so. But now I think the photo is good to go. You may need to refresh (F5) your cache. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support this version. It isn't perfect but this view during a broadcast ceremony is of much higher interest than an ordinary view of this mosque would be, and the mosque itself is quite impressive to begin with and unusual for being open-air. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 19:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:شهر قم از نگاه دوربین عکاسی - تصاویر باکیفیت از قم - کلانشهرهای ایران- مصطفی معراجی - والپیپر 06.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 20:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:שקיעה סתווית מעל מבצר עתלית.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 19:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Isfandiyar’s Fifth Ordeal.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 18:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I agree. The illustrator probably isolated the area and used a brush splatter technique, which is rare to see in illuminated drawings and manuscripts. --Cart (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Hieflau and Gesäuse from Rotmauer panorama 20210424.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 11:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Styria
  •   Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The view from Rotmauer is one of the clearest (e.g. with fewest obstructing trees in an area covered mostly by forest) one can get of the Gesäuse mountains from the east. This panorama is high resolution and shows a lot of detail both of the rocks on the mountains as well as the parts of Hieflau visible in the valley. --Domob (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Domob (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very good, but can you make the verticals of buildings and posts straigth, they look a bit tilted and are leaning out especially at the right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  Comment Thanks for your feedback! I've compared the picture against a grid, and I can't really see any systematic leaning of verticals. The buildings in particular (everywhere on the picture) look pretty vertical. Some posts are not exactly straight, but I assume that is because they are leaning for real. Do you have any particular building or post in mind that you think needs to be corrected? I'm happy to do so of course. --Domob (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support The trees are vertical, as far as I can see --Llez (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Not very sharp but nice --Commonists 19:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Wells Cathedral Arches, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 11:11:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
  •   Info To my mind this might be the strongest and most interesting Diliff photo not yet to become FP. It shows the so-called 'scissor arches' in Wells Cathedral - an unusual and almost unique architectural feature inserted to stabilise the cathedral's structure during the fourteenth century. The light is really nice and the composition and image quality are good as usual. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Fascinating architectonic peculiarity, very good composition and quality. --Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Hanooz 18:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I can really feel the smell and (probably) cool air of this Gothic church while looking at this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice but I don't like the rays of light from the lamp in the centre above the altar --Commonists 19:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Jankar Nala Rarik Oct20 D72 18292.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 May 2021 at 02:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
  •   Info created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tagooty (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comparing this version to the first uploaded version, I actually prefer the original (except for the CAs). The current one looks   Overprocessed with excessive sharpening and a weird blue tint on some of the mountains. The light is also quite harsh but that may be inevitable at this location. Buidhe (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Harsh light and bluish tint is normal due to the high altitude. The ridge is about 6 km long, so the mountains are fairly distant. --Tagooty (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ligthing, colors, compo, quality not at FP level to me --RolfHill (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Schloss der Commanderie (St-Pieters-Voeren) 2017.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2021 at 14:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Stonechat (Saxicola rubicola) male, Beaulieu, Hampshire.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2021 at 10:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Your preferred image doesn't have as much definition or sharpness. And too much wood for me. I wouldn't put it up for FP these days. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Charles, we're talking about capturing the moment, good light, good colours, good composition. Pixel peeping the other photo just shows that the point is being missed. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
FPC has certainly lost good composition to identify-species and technical perfection over the years. I'm thrilled that Rhododendrites is bringing it back for bird photos. --Cart (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment You might consider cropping out half the sky above the bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've made a suggested crop on the left Ikan Kekek leaving eye on rule of thirds. What do you think? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That looks good except that you could leave just a tiny bit more room to the left of the plant. But I also still think removing some of the sky above the bird would be good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • let's see if others have an opinion, before cropping. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we please put the rule of thirds to death at FPC. Or at least, anyone who quotes it should be required to refrain from opposing another image due to "composition". It's a poor guide for newbies who don't know any better yet. Since FPC serves as a teaching environment for some new photographs, it would be sad if they felt this "rule" had any merit. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The rule of thirds does have merit. Since when was FPC supposed to serve as a teaching environment? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • FPC was not designed to be a teaching environment, nevertheless it has become that. New photographers come here to learn from comments made about photos and to make their first tentative nominations all the time. I can think of a number of users who have improved their photography skills thanks to this forum. The page views for this forum, plus the list, in English only is at an average of about 450/day. Add to that the 32 other languages that redirects here. A lot more people than the voters read these comments. --Cart (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but lacking wow factor. --Tagooty (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Regardless of any theoretical backing, I agree with the proposed vertical crop as it looks pleasing to my eye. -- King of ♥ 21:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Golden orb-weaver spider (Nephila inaurata madagascariensis) female 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2021 at 10:33:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I see there are 2 FPs. The two images are located in the FP gallery under a spurious family Nephilidae which doesn't exist, which I why I missed them. To give a response as to what is FP about this in my view - most spider images (e.g. all our FPs) are of stationary animals. This one is at work weaving its web with a skill that very few spider species possess. To capture that is quite a challenge. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • But you haven't "captured that": it is not at all apparent that this spider is "at work". They just seem to be hanging about and the photographer is at at an unfortunate angle wrt its head. So that's a negative, rather than positive. Perhaps a short movie clip would be better, along with more suitable lighting. -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I find this interesting to move my eye around, and that's enough for me to consider it an FP, along with Charles' point above about what he captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quite distracting background. --Ivar (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --RolfHill (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Considering the size --Llez (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Neighborhood Church of Chico, April 2021.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2021 at 03:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Thanks so much, Cart. I didn't even know that gallery existed. Weirdly enough, two of the seven images are mine :-D --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Manene Tradisi Ganti Baju Mayat di Tana Toraja.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 May 2021 at 13:46:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
  •   Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wilfredor (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Some may find it shocking, but great EV in fact, and I'm not sure if we have other pictures on Commons about such customs, never mind any highlighted content. --A.Savin 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really ordinary composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles --Commonists 18:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fixed new section, Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions. So far, photos like this and other images of religious practice/solemn occations/traditional doings have been a little awkwardly bunched with theatre/festivals/reenactments or in the 'Others' section. --Cart (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Huge educational value. The guidelines state: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. Here the rarity overwhelms the flaws, in my opinion. This image calls out in relation to customs and cultural diversity in the world -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not relevant; this is a very easy subject. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Difficult because 1) the opportunity doesn't come often, 2) there are psychological obstacles to overcome.
What is rare is precious. How many pictures like this one do we have on Commons? -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Googling the subject, it's clear that this tradition is becoming a hotspot for photographers, much like the mud racing we had earlier. And yes, not that difficult to shoot since the main subjects are not moving about a lot here. But it is a good quality photo, a rarity with high EV and something we haven't had on Commons before so I tend to agree with Basile on this. It is a photo of gentleness and caring that certainly makes you look twice; that is also a kind of 'wow' that takes this over the bar for FP IMO. --Cart (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  02:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support RaiyaniM (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support A photo like this is more about storytelling (even if there is an element of performing for the cameras). -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. I also don't really like the background, especially the cigarettes --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a shocking picture, it is distasteful but makes you want to dig about this culture. --Gnosis (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above and tilted RolfHill (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Bourdon terrestre (Bombus terrestris) (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 14 May 2021 at 13:26:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View from the Chapel on the Michaelsberg on the Upper Rhine Plain.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 May 2021 at 09:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Stibnite - Herja mine, Maramures, Romania.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 May 2021 at 14:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Polystichum setiferum-20210427-RM-165358.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 May 2021 at 13:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Dryopteridaceae
  •   Info Shoots of a fern in a garden in Bamberg. Focus stack of 6 frames processed with Helicon focus. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful contre-jour photo which shows the fascinating unrolling of the fern in an excellent way. --Aristeas (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. -- Karelj (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Karelj,sorry --Commonists 18:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others Piotr Bart (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really contre-jour, still not the best ligthing option for this subject, I believe RolfHill (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question RolfHill, just for my edification, what would make it really contre-jour? Would the light have to hit it straight-on? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:White-throated sparrow in CP close up (02081).jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2021 at 20:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passerellidae_(New_world_sparrows)
  •   Info Close-up of a white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), perhaps the most handsome of the relatively common sparrows where I live. all by — Rhododendrites talk |  20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peulle (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks nice in preview, but I don't like the unfocused lower part, sorry. --A.Savin 21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the head of the bird and would support with a tighter crop at left and bottom that cut out some of the more unfocused bits. Buidhe (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I considered cropping before nominating, but I prefer the composition this way. Will wait for some additional opinions here before giving it a try. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support great portrait! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support (I would not crop it.) --Aristeas (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp for 500 mm, i found eye is on ideal 33%, 66%. Crop would spoil it. Good work. --Mile (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 14:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good portrait of a bird, but not FP IMO. --Tagooty (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --RolfHill (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the ice and water on his beak, and your reflection in his eye. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Gosling in GWC (43721).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 12 May 2021 at 17:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Langweerderwielen-Langwarder Wielen. 19-03-2021. (actm) 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2021 at 15:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural# Netherlands Friesland
  •   Info View of Langweerderwielen from the Zandvlakte in the early morning. (Golden hour landscapes.)
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay 💬 06:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice mood and colours. There is a dust spot in the sky (see the image note), I would suggest to remove it. --Aristeas (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done. Removed spots. Thank you for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special for FP nomnation, no WOW. -- Karelj (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 14:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Karelj Buidhe (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support One of those images that shouldn't work but does. I think it has something to do with the tree. And maybe the color. Just the perfect winter-is-going morning mood. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting is good but the compo isn't striking --RolfHill (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Suzhou canals November 2017 003.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2021 at 04:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There is usually more color hidden in very white or black areas than you might think. I have made screenshots of the Lightroom edits. General settings plus a few gradient filters to tone down some bright areas and give the water an extra boost. My settings are in Swedish, but I think you can figure them out anyway since the order of LR functions is the same. Keep in mind that values work a bit differently when editing a jpeg vs the raw. --Cart (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good, but I need something (like a cloud) in the upper right corner for the composition to be fully satisfying to me. Could be an excellent VI with the name of the canal identified in the scope, though, and definitely a superior QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I was OK with it at first but now, having seen Cart's edit, I'd like to see that one nominated instead. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above, too ordinary --RolfHill (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Golden Ears seen from the Viewpoint Beach.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2021 at 02:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
  •   Info: Golden Ears seen from the Viewpoint Beach, Golden Ears Provincial Park; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support The snow is slightly blown out, but overall still a very nice panorama. -- King of ♥ 04:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome Buidhe (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The clouds block too much. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles, just too much clouds --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • IMO the clouds are a plus in aesthetic terms and accurately represent common weather in the Pacific Northwest. Buidhe (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Indeed! I waited for a break in the clouds, so that they are just flanking the peak. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
      • In fact, I probably wouldn't have supported if the clouds weren't there. -- King of ♥ 21:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I like these clouds, colors, composition and that dead tree on the left. --Grtek (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others --Llez (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the clouds --Commonists 17:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice clouds :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would consider to crop one third from the right --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Buidhe’s explanation. --Aristeas (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles. -- Karelj (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charlesjsharp --Tagooty (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Buidhe. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --RolfHill (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:CP GE AC4400CW 9739 Exshaw.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2021 at 18:10:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:E-burg asv2019-05 img68 PrKosmonavtov metro station.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2021 at 12:39:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • what's supposed to be distorted? There's some degree of unavoidable, optically necessary "perspective distortion" - which is no real "distortion" in a narrower sense of the word. Unfortunately the English language does not differentiate between (in German) Verzeichnung and Verzerrung... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Martin Falbisoner: Pingen Sie es an, wenn Sie wollen, dass ich es sehe, aber es ist immer noch verzerrt.--Commonists 13:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Commonists: Naja, es sieht aus, wie es eben mit 14mm im Kleinbildformat aussieht - und gangbare Alternativen zu solch einem Bildwinkel sehe ich bei einem dergelagerten Motiv in praktischer Hinsicht keine. Letztlich ist alles natürlich Geschmacksfrage. :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay 💬 06:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For croping the bulbs. --Mile (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IHMO, good image, but no reason for nomination for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Mile. --Tagooty (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice place, but unfortunate crop on top and sides is ruining the result. --Ivar (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)~
  •   Weak oppose bad crop --Piotr Bart (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Top crop --RolfHill (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:WLM - 2020 - Catedral-basílica de Nuestra Señora del Pilar - 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2021 at 07:29:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Spain
  •   Info created & uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I love it! A kind of fairytale-like glow to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the coords are incorrect, as they show the church itself and not the camera location. Looking at the maps, one would presume that the photographer took it from the other side of the river, but how come that the water is as still? --A.Savin 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    I have to   Oppose for now, as I'd like an explanation by Moahim. --A.Savin 12:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Coordinates was accepted automatically during uploading, I guess. I'll correct them. Also, You can look at this image to check location. About still water - I was lucky with quiet riverflow and long exposure of the brightest shot, of course. --Moahim (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done Correct coordinates. --Moahim (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, striking the oppose; still not sure if I should support though, and actually you should fix the coords completely including SDC. --A.Savin 00:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That PD, yes. He made shot at least of 2 photos, but not sure where he centered them. Shot could be done better. Strong echo at left tower is also strange, cant be seen on rigth side. --Mile (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 14:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I can forgive some technical imperfections in long-exposure photos of buildings at night ... but not that horribly posterized area at the first-second stage transition on the right-hand tower where what looks like the low-pressure sodium-vapor light below is illuminating a corner. It might be fixable, I don't know. But we have seen better here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Piotr Bart (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --RolfHill (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Sea Girt Lighthouse October 2020.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2021 at 06:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#United States
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ 06:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 06:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Possibly too close, or is it the 24mm lens?. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    This is the furthest away I could get without including distracting elements like the curb. -- King of ♥ 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I am ok with the composition. Great quality. --Clément Bardot (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very sharp photo and a balanced composition, but not anything special for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the flashiest FP, but solid, nonetheless. I like the building and the colors, and the angle is a clever way to avoid having the bushes block anything important while still showing them and the sign, which I find important. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow-y enough for me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Cayambe (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose just good quality image of house, no reason for FP nomimation. -- Karelj (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is QI but miss something more for FP. --Mile (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Could have been nothing FP-level but ... the color and detail is crisp and natural looking, and the clouds behind actually frame it quite well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, but no wow factor. --Tagooty (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --RolfHill (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Commonists 19:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Fawn and white Welsh Corgi puppy standing on rear legs and sticking out the tongue.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2021 at 00:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I found this word by searching a relevant category. There's an article Fawn (colour) on Wikipedia, but I can't tell if the word is widely used in English (probably not). In French we say "fauve", word translated as Fulvous in Wikidata, but no equivalent category seems to exist on Wikimedia Commons. For sure not a green dog in any case   Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent ... though I'd like to see part of the uppermost area slightly cropped away. --Cayambe (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I had the same idea at first, but after thinking I wonder if this large framing is not better this way, as lead room. Funny to imagine this puppy could jump in the frame :-) Thank you! -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad crop, top should be croped.--Mile (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Andrei (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Hanooz 18:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support The crop is OK for me --Llez (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the photographer or someone else reflected in the dog's eyes. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Agree, top crop needed, still nice --RolfHill (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 21:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Pollution in the Saint-Charles river, Quebec city, Canada.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2021 at 19:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done Thanks for your sugestion --Wilfredor (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wilfredor, Ikan said you should change the file name AFTER the nomination, not during it. When you move the file, you have to move the nomination page with it, or the FPCBot will not be able to process the image correctly if it is promoted. The Bot can't follow re-directs and it will promote the re-direct instead of the photo. Please remember this in the future. I have fixed this for you now. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I underestand now, thanks for move it carter. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colours --Llez (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IHMO, no reason for nomination of some sewerage parts for FP. Quality good, but nothing extra... -- Karelj (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Karelj RolfHill (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Biserica fortificată Cisnădioara, iarna. Ianuarie 2020.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2021 at 20:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Romania
  •   Info A beautiful photo of a fortified church in Romania, which won first prize in WLM Romania in 2020. The metadata shows it was taken using a drone, which probably makes it pretty unique, and given this, the quality is very good. created by Ridethefog - uploaded by Ridethefog - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite sharp for a drone photo. I like it Buidhe (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Fascinating. Nice angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality is not good even for a drone. Sky is very noisy and in upper parts there is a harsh border between noise and extensive NR (poor post-process for sure). The wow effect from this picture is by far not as strong to make me ignore quality issues. --A.Savin 13:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this could be improved by reworking the noisy parts in raw. I have the same drone and I believe it's currently among the best UAVs you can get for a reasonable price. It has a little smaller sensor from APS-C but i'm impressed. --Ximonic (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much uninteresting foreground with all those barren trees, and what's on the right isn't all that interesting, either. I will propose a crop that focuses more narrowly on the church and the snow-capped mountains in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The dark mountain on the right detracts from the image. -- King of ♥ 13:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks no darker than a typical late winter afternoon to me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)



Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Mon 03 May → Sat 08 May
Tue 04 May → Sun 09 May
Wed 05 May → Mon 10 May
Thu 06 May → Tue 11 May
Fri 07 May → Wed 12 May
Sat 08 May → Thu 13 May

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)

Thu 29 Apr → Sat 08 May
Fri 30 Apr → Sun 09 May
Sat 01 May → Mon 10 May
Sun 02 May → Tue 11 May
Mon 03 May → Wed 12 May
Tue 04 May → Thu 13 May
Wed 05 May → Fri 14 May
Thu 06 May → Sat 15 May
Fri 07 May → Sun 16 May
Sat 08 May → Mon 17 May

Closing a featured picture promotion request

The bot

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2021), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2021.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night shots, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2021), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.