Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


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 and current month.

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

Formal thingsEdit


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 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 documents

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."


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 a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. 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 audio

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).

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}} -- ~~~~.


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 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}} ~~~~
  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 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 are 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.

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:San Francisco Bay Bridge Western Span at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 07:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) Wide view.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 21:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Atlantoxerus getulus - Morro Jable 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 17:06:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View to Iron Gate, Danube.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 16:10:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Since that haze is often seen in the Hudson Highlands, it doesn't really bother me here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:84+35 German Army Sikorsky CH-53G Super Stallion ILA Berlin 2016 21.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 09:07:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Monasterio de Sanahin, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 44-46 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 04:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bahía de Doha, Catar, 2013-08-04, DD 07.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2017 at 04:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info Traditional Qatar boat in Doha Bay, Qatar with the city skyline in the background. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Ceci Sierra (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great, thank you Ceci for this nom! Poco2 08:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, too hazy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't know why people are complaining about the haze. The haze is clearly an artistic choice to separate the boat from the background. Moreover, the traditional boat is an interesting juxtaposition against the super modern skyscrapers in the back. However, the image size is a bit small, with very few pixels on the boat. dllu (t,c) 07:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Lighthouse beside the Montazah garden in Alexandria.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 22:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Note:I withdraw the nomination. Thanks--Alaa :)..! 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Open wing position of Papilio crino, Fabricius,1793 – Common Banded Peacock WLB.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 15:25:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   Info Open wing position of Papilio crino, (Common Banded Peacock) created by Sayan Sanyal - uploaded by Sayan Sanyal - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zeetendra (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image present visible oversharpening (resulting in noise because sharpen software filter) and motion blur. Also it need white balance. --The Photographer 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kritzolina (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There doesn't seem to be any definition/sharpness, and I don't know what processing has been done. Does seem very green too. 17:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This vote was done by Charlesjsharp who forgot to sign --The Photographer 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
True. Charles (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Svartifoss July 2014.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 14:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Iceland
  •   Info Svartifoss (Black Falls) is a waterfall in Skaftafell in Vatnajökull National Park, Iceland. It is surrounded by dark lava columns which gave rise to its name. This is a renomination. I've tried to address the issues mentioned back then. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't know if it's just me, but Firefox keeps crashing (or at least the tab does) when I try to open the file (as opposed to the file page, which is fine). Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    •   Oppose I upgraded to FF 52.0.1 and that did it. However, the image is far too overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I didn't even process it that much... but I have to admit that f/22 - I didn't have much choice btw - doesn't really help qualitywise. ;-) I guess I'd withdraw the nom now but I'm interested if there are still browser related problems somewhere ... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    •   Info not here, hmm... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I have so far tried this with Chrome and Edge. Instead of crashing, those browsers display a long series of symbols, among which the author's metadata is interspersed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question is anyone else experiencing the same problems? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Firefox 52.0 here, no crashing problem for me -- Thennicke (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Oasis in the Draa Valley.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 13:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Caravan in the desert.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 13:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Caravan in the desert, Morocco. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Contrast and saturation may be a bit over the top here but the visual impression is just awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral until we fix whatever's going on along the highest ridgeline (CA, oversharpening ... not sure). Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are at least two round dust spots in the sky. --Cayambe (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Colors look saturated, harsh contrast (It could be fixed rebuilding from the amazing D800 RAW Dynamic Range) --The Photographer 16:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--g. balaxaZe 20:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alaa :)..! 22:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow!! A scenery just like from a picture book or a wall calendar. Looking at it, this Russian children's verse by Chukovsky "Не ходите дети в Африку гулять" ("Kids, do not go walk in Africa") immediately comes to my mind ;-) Seriously, a great photo. --A.Savin 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support (moderately) per others, but how are the people in such shadow? What's the source of the shadow? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The camels are blocking the sunlight, which is coming from the right of the frame. However, the blacks are burned too, which gives it unrealistic contrast -- Thennicke (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 22:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is too small, as noted above Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done Check now --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support to remove FPX. Not too bad for the time, and nice pose. Yann (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Any chance of getting rid of that ugly mark left by a paper clip (up right)? --cart-Talk 12:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose LivioAndronico, where on earth did you get this POS from? The quality is dreadful. It looks like it has been upscaled and sharpened. This file is a classic example of where Commons does a poor job with artworks. There are at least two different copies of this photograph, of varying quality and size, and they all have different sources. Yet nobody updates the "source" in the description. Can we have some honesty about where we pinch our photos? -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Colin keep only a pic --LivioAndronico (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Colin said it: Not to put too fine a point on it, this expanded version sucks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You really need specifics? It was horribly out of focus, with weird artifacts. But surely, you saw that yourself. But it looks like it's now 494 × 794 pixels and should be FPXed again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you explain to me where I asked you specific? Why do you invent things? Above is a photo of 1906, you know you do better? I do not believe. Be polite I just tried to help out in any case not answer questions that nobody made to you ... specific ... who gave it to you asked ... boh .... --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm talking about your enlarged version, not the original photo, which is great but too small for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment User:The Photographer has reverted Livio's version. At least the current version isn't trying to pretend it has more pixels than it had. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment and remark: as I noticed that there are people of several cultures on these discussions and sometimes is not possible to recognize the border between formal and sarcastic language, can we please stay on referential language only and avoid (no exception) anything that might sound either as sarcasm, mockery, criticism of the person, demeaning of one's skills, accusations of lack of objectivity and whatever else, please? Thanks. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination ~ Moheen (keep talking) 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Dor blad van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) na langdurige motregen in maart 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 06:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kloster Paulinzella, Thüringen, 360x180, 170316, ako (1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 06:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @King of Hearts: Neither do I see any overexposure (except of course the two little windows in the wall on the right - the sun is directly behind them and what do you expect to see when you shoot straigt in the sun), nor can I find a "stitch line". The light conditions did not change between the frames. Please give me a hint. --Code (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've marked the overexposure as an image note; large parts of it are at 255 in one or more channels, and significant detail has been lost. The line is visible only in the 360 viewer, where the left edge connects to the right edge (of the flat image). -- King of ♠ 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: Well then, I've spent the last four hours working on a new version without any over- or underexposure. You can find the result here but I don't think it's very convincing. The new file has a perfect histogram but it looks grey, flat and not very appealing. So I'm not going to replace this "overexposed" version with the new version. I think in this case it's better to accept some brighter parts. A perfect histogram doesn't always make a perfect picture. Regarding the stitching line you saw it's obviously a problem with the panellum viewer. As you can see here the sky is created from a single frame so there definitely can't be any problem with differently exposed frames or changing light situations. Sorry, but all in all I don't see anything I should or even could improve here. --Code (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I, in fact, do think that the new version is superior. Yes, there is a little bit of HDR-ness to it, but it looks as natural as could possibly fit on my computer monitor. Not only is the overexposure fixed, but even the line in the sky is less visible. By the way, I think the line is real: I downloaded the original version, did a basic B&W conversion (to make luminosity values easier to compare), and opened it up in Photoshop. If you compare the two sides about 300-600 pixels from the top, the left edge has values 174-176, while the right edge has values 177-179. The 360 viewer is an accurate rendition of this difference, as you can see that it is darker on the right than on the left (left edge is on the right of the right edge when you join them together). -- King of ♠ 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So how do you explain the line if it goes straight through a single frame? The question is serious, I really would like to know it. I'd be happy to repair it if only I could but I simply don't know how. --Code (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Flatirons Sunrise.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 23:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Tyrrhenische Mauereidechse.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 18:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info created by CChris - uploaded by CChris - nominated by CChris -- Christoph (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christoph (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The head is not particularly sharp. Charles (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. A good picture, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'm actually OK with the head the way it is, but I think we could do without most of that space on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, the head is not necessarily as sharp as it possibly could be, but it's close to it, and for me, the composition is nice enough to override that. I think the space on the left is fine, personally -- Thennicke (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:AIRPOWER16 - Air to Air SK35C Draken.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 16:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I added this information to the nomination and image description. Thanks --The Photographer 16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
In case it's not obvious, that was a   Support BTW. - Reventtalk 17:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I was suspecting it about your comment :) --The Photographer 17:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good--Ermell (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support (and a biased vote from Sweden  ) The light is such that you can see the slight curve on the wings, it looks like it is floating above the clouds, like a space shuttle. A very different take on the usual plane photos. --cart-Talk 11:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Moderate oppose Sorry to break the streak. But while I see this as a QI for sure, we have enough pictures of jet fighters as to consider the bar higher than this one is flying. Compare with the Luftwaffe picture below ... this is static and to me the clouds in the background are a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't get a sense of speed or power from this angle; no wow for me -- Thennicke (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. Katsuhiko Tokunaga is a professional and certainly knows his craft, but I find this one a bit bland compared to some of his other works. --El Grafo (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--g. balaxaZe 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Image:Alegría personificada. Carnaval de Ruzafa.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 12:53:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Dorieo - uploaded by Dorieo - nominated by User:Dorieo -- Dorieo (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dorieo (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, not sharp. Needs a personality rights warning tag, too. Nice motif anyways. --Code (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It has a personality warning now. It's clearly unsharp at full size, but full size is bigger than life size, and this photo fulfills the first of the 12 Elements of a Merit Image in spades, in my opinion: "Impact is the sense one gets upon viewing an image for the first time. Compelling images evoke laughter, sadness, anger, pride, wonder or another intense emotion." And for me, the impact is lasting. My feeling is, if this photo could be sharpened just a bit so that the woman is sharper at full screen, we should support a promotion. I could see this as an iconic image. Dorieo, could you please sharpen a bit? Tomascastelazo, given our previous discussions, I'd be particularly interested in your take on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I really love the pose and the lighting and the joy that just pours from this photo. But ... none of her face is in focus, not even her eyes, and that's the least we can ask technically from an image of a person. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Excellent shoot composition, however, the quality factor in this case is improvable --The Photographer 16:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan Kekek I think it is a beautiful capture, however, the image is a little soft. Even if the instant is special, the motif is not, that is, a photograph of a woman (as beautiful as she may be), therefore the technical issue here is important. If it had been the last image of a famous person it would be a different story. Thank you for your consideration. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Atura Hotel, Albury NSW.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Superfície - Bordo Trifolio Não Orientável.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a photo, and no, there is this two. And you don't need to be a expert to compare and see how great the difference is... and why you complaining about that? We may have hundreds of sea shells, churches, mountains ... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ... and church interiors. Well captured and it belongs to be together with the previous nomination – feel free to make a group nomination next time for similar photos where there aren't many of the same kind. – LucasT 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm editing a huge volume of pieces, and this ones they stood out, that's why I didn't put together, I just edited it, and the other 2 weeks ago. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like it, as I did the last one, but one is enough for me. Charles (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp ??
This is not the same object, you just vote in favour of one church? One painting? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I gave my opinion. So far, I did not oppose. So how many similar images, with the same artistic concept, but with slight differences and different colours, do you think should be promoted? 50? 100? 1000? 09:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Around 80.... The difference is not subtle, similar names don't make them equal... Panthera tigris, Panthera leo... And from 20 with the same quality I selected only 2... And how many Mathematical objects do we have in this quality? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Provisional Support on fixing the CA on the top blade Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Case,   Fixed. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Landsort August 2016 32.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 05:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question - So this photo is not busy enough for you? :-) There doesn't seem to be much interest. But the voting period lasts 8 more days, so I will wait a bit longer before considering a withdrawal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't really understand the lack of interest, pro or con, in this image. Do you all just find it too subtle to interest you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Famagusta 01-2017 img14 Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 19:47:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info All by A.Savin
  •   Support --A.Savin 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The foreground is pretty cluttered but the lights + atmosphere more than makes up for it. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ezarateesteban 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice light, but the foreground trees are a problem. The best of the best? No sorry. Yann (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice symmetry, centering an off-center building. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Trees are not (evils) not so disturbing visually, though the blue in background is a bit dark, quality is very good and the light excelent. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Contortionist Eliza, "Show Contortion is a Cabaret" 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 18:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created and uploaded by Steffen Günthel, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lot of CA all around. Fixable. Otherwise good. --Code (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Code, "a lot of CA" seems to be quite exaggerated. I see a small purple line on the top of the hat... S.Günthel, could you look at that? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's a striking photo. I think it would be OK to feature as is, though I expect it to be corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not my cup of tea, sorry... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Definitely this pic has some good "arguments" --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose "Contortionist", really?? She's just sitting there stiking a pose, looking like something out of a gentleman's magazine. There is no 'wow' in that for me. If it was one of the other photos from the series where she acually do something, I would consider it for FP. Those photos also show just as much of her "arguments" to satisfy the male audience here. ;) --cart-Talk 11:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I hesitated to nominate another one of the series. Ultimately, I find her expression here is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done CA removed. However carter was a joke. Composition,light and quality are good...--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately there's still some CA at her right arm and on the chair-whatever-thing she's sitting on. --Code (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code: Could you please leave a note, as I don't see what needs to be edited. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why am I not allowed to not be 'wowed' by the same things you are? --cart-Talk 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If I may, I think Livio was saying that he was joking, not that you were a joke. In Italian, "Carter, era un scherzo"; no "it" is necessary for meaning in Italian, but I think he left out a crucial comma by mistake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
So this is how international conflicts are started. ;) Italian has never been my strong side... --cart-Talk 18:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
more than anything else is a "european" conflict carter. --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  aridone @Code: @Yann: @Daniel Case: I think is fine now --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Horseback wrestlers in Kyrgyzstan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 15:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment - I have a full sequence, but this is the original crop of this image. I could upload others and propose it as a set, maybe. -Theklan (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess that depends on what else would be in the series, but I don't think I would vote to feature this picture, due to the tight crop and the other horse overlapping this one's nose. Others may differ, but I find that quite distracting. But then again, this is a very interesting subject with a beautiful background of snow-capped peaks, so I don't want to oppose, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have this others in Flickr: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. There are some other sports, but I want to make different nominations for best of each kind. If you think one of them is better, I could upload it, cancel this nomination, and start over again. -Theklan (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
None of them seem like FPs to me, but others may have a different opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan; frankly I think this vertical orientation isn't the best framing and a lot of the mountains could be cropped out. (Although I must say this is an interesting take on riding bareback  !) Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Megazostrodon sp. Natural History Museum - London.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 14:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created by User:Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Theklan (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not in focus. Charles (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. As this model is not running away, you would be expected to approach pinpoint sharpness to get the photo featured. However, it might be a good Valued Image nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even without looking at it at full-res, the blurry areas up front are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:30+68 German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 ILA Berlin 2016 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 10:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  •   Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H. 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportJulian H. 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wow Ezarateesteban 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow. Getting a perfect exposure like this out of an aircraft-against-blue-skye image is not an easy task, as the sun seems to have a tendency to be anywhere but in the right place for that. What's even more, you make it look like an air-to-air shoot. That's what you'd expect to see on the cover page of an aviation magazine or the front page of etc. Congrats! --El Grafo (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Outstanding --The Photographer 17:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Excellent! —- George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nose is a touch out of focus, but you can't always have everything. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp for this kind of photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alaa :)..! 22:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Fuente en Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 227-229 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 08:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Fountain in the Old City of Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. All by me, Poco2 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive. The blacks are a little bit noisy and the crop at the bottom almost too tight, but still acceptable. -- -donald- (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There's some striping/bands at the edge of the rear building, which I think is due to the HDR merge. Perhaps one frame can be used here and merged by hand at that location, or some adjustment to the blending tools? -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Colin: I improved that area with some editing. I also used the opportunity to improve the crop at bottom and on the left (that helped to center the image). I also darkened a bit the shadows as the sky was a bit too bright Poco2 18:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very impressive and I'm sure you'll solve the issue mentioned by Colin (which isn't a big deal imo anyway) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. Beautiful. And if you decide to de-noise the sky (which I think is not necessary), please keep the stars, as it's nice and impressive to see almost untraily stars in a picture that has this much light in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support More nice combination of warm and cool. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alaa :)..! 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The bottom left corner is cut off. -- King of ♠ 03:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Georgia Jvari monastery IMG 9345 2070.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 22:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created and uploaded by Alexxx1979 - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Great composition and colors, but quality is slightly low (especially the right side) for a 6 MP image. -- King of ♠ 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The fuzziness KoH refers to is clearly visible at full screen on my laptop. Apologies if I'm unduly devaluing this nomination, but it's my impression that we've had a lot of submissions that were of comparable if not greater beauty but also sharper in the foreground and middleground. I don't feel like this is an FP, but we'll see if it will be one, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality and detail too low. I don't see anything exceptional here beyond a holiday photo. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support critics are right as far as technical issues are concerned. But to me this nom is more than just a holiday photo, its composition is excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support for the light and composition – LucasT 15:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, sorry. Nice motif, but lack of details. Looks also a bit tilted ccw --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per Martin (...and 7) --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--g. balaxaZe 20:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Грчка црква, Прилеп. (алт.).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I like the motif of the church with the vanishing houses in the background.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. That could work for me if the church had been sharper and there wasn't such a pronounced blue shift; what caused that? Anyway, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think if we could see more layers of buildings withing the fog... Like sunsets, the mist can be attractive but you still need a compelling composition and luck. The technical quality and size are low, with lots of purple CA. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The only thing I don't like about this photo is the omnipresent purple fringe, but that can be dealt with easily. Otherwise I like it a lot. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Lorenzo Lotto - Madonna and Child with Two Donors - 77.PA.110 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:National Carillon, Canberra ACT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 12:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info National Carillon, Canberra, reflecting in the waters of Lake Burley Griffin
  •   Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe a few too bright ...but ok. Nice composition. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Midday light, too bright, overall nothing special. Yann (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Yann. Beautiful composition but the lighting can be better. -- King of ♠ 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand the "too bright" comments; nothing is overexposed, and this is indeed as the scene looked. I assume you have checked your monitors? -- Thennicke (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    I can only speak for myself, but to me "too bright" here refers to the quality of the light, not the quantity. -- King of ♠ 03:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I see no problems with the light. It is a great view of an iconic building, with great detail and quality. It's a very wholesome view that puts into context the building's location on a shorefront, and gives a good idea of the building's size. Incredible shot. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Lori Berd, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 63-65 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 13:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Ruined armenian church inside Lori Berd (Lori Fortress), a 11th-century fortress located in the Lori Province, Armenia. The fortress was built by David Anhoghin to become the capital of Kingdom of Tashir-Dzoraget in 1065. Poco2 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support  ■ MMXX talk 14:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hm, sorry. In this case I tend to the "QI but not FP" section. The light is not that excellent, the front part is in shadow and the stones around the ruin look a little bit messy. --Code (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it quite much, with its large dynamic range, good light and nice clouds. Now, when going into pixel-peeping mode, the boundary between the hill and the sky looks edited at some places, this could be improved. – LucasT 15:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I disagree with Code in this instance. The contrast between the light and shadow is what makes the photo to me, to a large extent, and ruins sort of should be messy, which is why they're ruins. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    This place is 1000 years old, if it were tidy and the construction flawless it would loss its charm. This church is a real relic Poco2 22:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yet another camera I'd love to have... lNeverCry 06:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, I see nothing special in this that would make it FP-worthy, as this image could be produced by many with even lighting and a DSLR, and the composition is boring. I have many of these images for ebay-auctions. It is a good QI and VI but not FP in my opinion. FP needs wow, something that places it among our finest. Simple but good studio shots alone don't do it I'm afraid. Would it have exceptional technical quality that shows much more detail, I'd vote differently. – LucasT 11:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, but it's just a pretty straight-forward picture of a common subject. It deserves its QI and VI badge, and could possibly become FP at several more Wikipedias, but for FP at Commons it lacks "WOW". --El Grafo (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see it as any less FP-worthy than this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Well, I'd probably stay neutral on that one. At least the Sony is perfectly clean and there's something about the lighting that makes it look much more … uhm … "professional" to my eyes (though I don't really know what exactly that something is). --El Grafo (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Daniel Case, El Grafo, I think the pure white background makes the difference, the photo here has a grey background, making it look more dull/dirty. Having a white background—shadows dissolving into it—is a step up in photographic quality in my book (as long as the object stays well defined) and that is what removes you "seeing" how the sausage is made (the paper background being used). There is a line in perception somewhere. Consider this as a clearer example: File:Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS USM.jpgLucasT 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very good photo but not a FP for me. Reproducible by anyone at any time--Ermell (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:View across Botany Bay from Inscription Point.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia
  •   Info created by Philip Terry Graham - uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - One of my finer works. Ran unopposed as a Quality and Valued image candidate. Thought I'd try my luck at the third and final hurdle. :) -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Significant artefacts at the left, causing the surface of the rocks to appear smudged. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for an iPhone picture to reach the level of technical quality required for an FP. -- King of ♠ 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Aside from technical considerations, I'm not wowed by anything here. The area isn't the most attractive place I've seen lately. lNeverCry 06:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination, mostly due to King's reasoning. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Wood pigeons (Columba palumbus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info Even very common birds can pose for you... created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Is this a couple? Can you tell which one is which sex? I observe rock pigeons a lot, and I often have trouble telling the sexes apart unless the male is engaging in mating behavior or puffing himself up while chasing away another male. But sometimes, if I see a couple hanging out on a ledge, I can tell from the relative sizes, the shape of the ceres and the amount of iridescent feathers on the head, neck and upper torso. I'm guessing the pigeon on our left is the female, but I'm not sure and we don't have wood pigeons in my neck of the woods. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It would have been a guess to tell them apart, though the males have slightly larger heads, but from their behaviour on the branch they are for sure a couple. Charles (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I've been trying to figure out why I'm not yet feeling impelled to vote to feature this picture. I think it's because there's so much bokeh above the pigeons in the picture frame. I think that if you cropped out a bit more than half of it, I'd like the photo better and vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Happy to do that if others agree. Charles (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The bright bokeh behind the left pigeon is offputting, especially since the birds are light-colored. lNeverCry 06:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Competently done and a QI for sure, but just not enough wow for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Classic weekend evening atmoshere in home. --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:McClure Tunnel west.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Trouts in the pond.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info created by BuhaM - uploaded by BuhaM - nominated by BuhaM -- BuhaM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- BuhaM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't see much in focus here. Charles (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the distorted look (not that we have much choice - this is what you would see in real life). The "wow" factor comes from the startling number of trout in such a small area, as well as the splashes of golden color. Strong FP for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am wowed by the image itself, but not enough to disregard that it should have been sharper for an FP. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice reminder that trout season (for me) starts in a couple of weeks and I better get my license for this year, but other than that no wow for me. A little hard to tell what it is at first, and the pattern isn't striking. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:GNV ATLAS (ship, 1990), Sète cf03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose - Daniel is right, and the comparison clinched it for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 15:07:39 (UTC)

  •   Info Going further back in time than Compact Disc, here is a TDK Head Cleaner. The clear plastic is birefringent and demonstrates internal stress as coloured patterns (photoelasticity) when photographed using cross polarisation. In first photo, the polarising filter on the lens is at right-angles to the polarised light from the LCD monitor behind the cassette. This cancels out all the direct light, producing a black background. In second photo, the monitor was rotated 90°, aligning the polarised light with the filter. This lets through all the direct light, producing a white background. The colours are stronger in the first photo but also switched about (e.g., green and magenta). You can see a Juxtapose of the two images here. For reference, the cassette under normal light is shown in this photo. The pair of images demonstrate how rotation by 90° affects the interaction of polarised light with a polarised filter. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What a trip! Reality is overrated. --cart-Talk 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support out of pure interest, mostly, and also respect for the great focus on the subjects (the one on the left being cooler to me than the other). I'm still not quite sure I understand what you did, though. Did you produce some kind of spectroscopy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support of course. Colin has become a masterfully skilled expert on turning banal objects into abstract pieces of art. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Will never forget the awesome plasticky smell of fresh cassettes. Jm3 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Groovy! Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Missing category! (see the documentation).

File:Private Diwan (Court building) of Shah Safi I of Persia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 08:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Please write that info on the file's page, in English so it will be accesseble in the right place. --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMartin Falbisoner (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Sahand Ace, when was the file photographed? I'm guessing it must have been an analog photo, correct? Because my reaction to it is that it should be sharper, but I understand this is probably a scarce, maybe even unique photograph of a work of art that no longer exists. However, I don't think we have enough information yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter:I have written the information in english.
  • @Ikan Kekek:The most productive sites are filter in Iran,this is the cause that i could not apload appropriate photos.I have sent the address of the site which contains the information of this painting
  •   Comment - OK. They don't indicate this artwork no longer exists, nor do they state when it was photographed. Are you sure the Rijksmuseum no longer owns this work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not as sharp as we've come to expect of other painting digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel and my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 03:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Brazil
  •   Info created by Gabriel Monteiro - uploaded by Aspargos - nominated by Aspargos -- Aspargos (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aspargos (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very festive, but I regret the crop of the largest flower firework on the left. That crop by no means makes the photo bad, but I think it makes it not one of the most outstanding photos on the site. Do you have another version that doesn't have the firework partly cropped out? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's just how fireworks photography goes - no matter how good your framing and how wide your lens, the biggest burst of the show will always be cut off at the edge of the frame. :) Sort of like meteors and lightning. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support the crop's a bit unfortunate but I'm still very wowed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin – LucasT 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ezarateesteban 13:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll bite. --cart-Talk 15:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Some technical shortcomings like CA at the left, but fireworks are difficult to do well. -- King of ♠ 22:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the sharpest but wow! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support  ■ MMXX talk 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per King, fireworks pictures are difficult enough to do well that I am willing to forgive minor issues for one like this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support Difficult subject,the crop is unfortunate. -- KTC (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Sunlight and shadows on white cotton curtain.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 21:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
  •   Info So, either you are going to think that she has completely lost it or you are going to kick yourselves for not thinking of taking something as simple as this photo. ;) Either way, this playful interaction of shapes, soft sunlight and shadows makes me happy. All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - After about a month of visiting FP candidates my pattern recognition system adapts to spotting 'cart'-pictures.   This one reminds me of sitting as a kid in the kitchen, spoiling my time and watching the sun in the curtains ... --PtrQs (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It doesn't have a strong enough effect on me to support it as FP, I'm afraid. Part of that is the low contrast and not enough going on for me personally. – LucasT 11:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Although shot in the afternoon, the bright color of the light and the curtain makes me think of morning, and my cue to finally get out of bed. The wow for me is in the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I respect the photo and the fact that you stuck your neck out to nominate it, but it's just not special enough for me to think it warrants being run on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 22:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Floribeth Mora Canonisation JXXIII J-PII (2).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Aleteia Image Department - uploaded by Storkk - nominated by Vanoot59 -- Vanoot59 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Vanoot59 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Personality rights needed IMHO Ezarateesteban 12:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The portrait is nice, but the background is distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It would be great if one can manage to create a less distracting background. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann. lNeverCry 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not bothered by the background ... if anything the space to the side makes us curious about what she's looking at. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not outstanding --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 22:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Raven Rattle, late 19th Century Tlingit culture; Fort Wrangell, Alaska.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 22:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Colin: That is all valid criticism. Before you brought it up none of it crossed my mind. In response to your "What's the purpose" question: As an infrequent but repeat user of the Commons grading systems I often do not know which process to use. I came here to get some validation back to the museum that the Wikimedia community had some critique of their submission and also to get some approval of the image in case I distributed it around multiple articles. Overall, I am looking for some image grading to justify more-than-typical reuse of images, and am ambivalent about what form that should take. If an image is suggested to be integrated across languages, and in Wikidata, and elsewhere, then it seems right to me to submit it for grading somewhere. If anyone ever wanted to have talks about reforming the grading process then I might talk about that, because I would not have minded grading process that could have had any of a number of outcomes like "FP", "QI", "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects", etc. Right now it is still fairly novel for museums to make media donations, but as this trend steps up, I would like for there to be clearer guidance about what Wikipedians can do to mediate between museums and the Commons community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no unitary grading system. VIC, QIC and FPC have different criteria. Also, QIs have to be photographed by Commons members, whereas VIs and FPs don't have to. Check the Commons category, but this would seem to be a good VI candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled what you were expecting from FP. It's a perfectly reasonable picture, albeit with quite a lot of room left round the subject, and could be used in articles related to the subject. That's not really what we are judging here. While we aim (albeit imperfectly) to determine professional standards of technical quality in an image, we're also looking for something extra that takes it to be among our finest images. We need to be wowed, either by an amazing subject captured well or a mundane subject captured extraordinarily, or by amazing light, or a great moment, etc etc. One could set up a table with an infinite sheet of grey card, some soft boxes and a DSLR and snap away taking perfectly competent photos all day. They could be very useful documents of the collection of the museum and perfectly usable images, but what is special about them? Also, this photo is five years old, so you are not really getting feedback about what sort of photos they should take -- the photographer who took this has probably moved on long ago. Personally, I wish QI was merely a judge of a "professional quality; useful image" and didn't care about the image origins or some of the pixel-peeping that goes on. We lack that kind of grade and it seems to me the most useful one for our re-users because they could eliminate the poor quality images that one would need to be desperate to use. Btw, "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects" is unlikely to be a grading criteria. Commons is about more than WMF projects or the concerns of a MediaWiki user interface. I see the Bowers museum has a mission to "enrich lives through the world's finest arts and cultures" and "celebrate world cultures through their arts". If they believe that extends beyond the visitors to their museum, then sharing their collection with the world using freely licensed photos is one way. While Commons doesn't provide a great UI for viewing a collection, it does make it easy to share those images and permit their reuse elsewhere. Surely they should be mainly concerned with taking and offering the best photos they can, rather than worry about the opinions of half a dozen amateurs or their use on Wikimedia projects? Any professional photographer of artefacts will likely give better advice than anyone here can. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. A tighter crop might address some of those issues, but at the cost of making the picture too small to be nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin – LucasT 19:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Roma).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. We already had a similar candidate here which didn't pass. The main critizism there was that the WB was too cool. This picture here has the same issue. Besides that, I think this one lacks contrast and saturation. Additionally a geocode is missing and the description is far from being sufficient for FP. What do we see? Who painted the frescoes? When were they painted? I still don't get it why you never add an Italian description. You're a native speaker and a description in a second language could be very useful for a lot of users. Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion. --Code (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The WB,contrast and saturation are perfect. Geocode and the descripiption is the same of all my other FP however, I do not consider you an objective person as you know.Plus you are so offensive and naive that you think there isn't work behind? Only a camera on a tripod (on the floor probably put you) and that's it? But please be serious. So this discussion is useless as your comment,in my opinion. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • LivioAndronico, you've been on good behavior (from what I've seen) since your return. Don't backslide and remember what happened before. Is this photo geocoded? Is there an Italian-language description? I see you didn't address those things. And the question of who painted the frescoes is one I've given up asking you but previously wanted to know. I'm tending to find Code's sober expression of opinion more persuasive than your hot dismissal of him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: say:"Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." it is definitely a nice way of saying something, but treated as a child, especially after more than 100 FP. If for you it is a way of making nice, then I apologize, but I do not consider this, you can ask the saturation, artist, etc., but they are all things that one can "fix". --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Livioandronico2013: I'm sorry if I was wrong regarding the efforts you have to make to create such photos. I'm honestly curious: What else do you do to make such photos of ceilings? I really want to know as I'm always willing to improve my own skills. Concerning WB and saturation I still believe that they are far from being perfect. I know this church very well and that's not what it looks like. But well, maybe you're trying an artistic approach, then it might just be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code:What a question is that? .... Then what do you do more than point a camera on any object? The same is that these kind of photos and that is: perspective, cuts, contrast, saturation, etc. Then if you believe that the saturation etc are not to your taste is ok, but it is not respectful to others, or are more ignorant of you? Also write "Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." is a compliment in germany i think --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Another of these discussions which are leading to nowhere. So sad! --Code (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • if you had not insulted or making fun of other people it do not exist. And you would not be sad. --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hovewer   Done Ikan Kekek --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment and remark: as I noticed that there are people of several cultures on these discussions and sometimes is not possible to recognize the border between formal and sarcastic language, can we please stay on referential language only and avoid (no exception) anything that might sound either as sarcasm, mockery, criticism of the person, demeaning of one's skills, accusations of lack of objectivity and whatever else, please? Thanks. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File:La Fornarina by Raffaello.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Tue 21 Mar → Sun 26 Mar
Wed 22 Mar → Mon 27 Mar
Thu 23 Mar → Tue 28 Mar
Fri 24 Mar → Wed 29 Mar
Sat 25 Mar → Thu 30 Mar
Sun 26 Mar → Fri 31 Mar

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

Fri 17 Mar → Sun 26 Mar
Sat 18 Mar → Mon 27 Mar
Sun 19 Mar → Tue 28 Mar
Mon 20 Mar → Wed 29 Mar
Tue 21 Mar → Thu 30 Mar
Wed 22 Mar → Fri 31 Mar
Thu 23 Mar → Sat 01 Apr
Fri 24 Mar → Sun 02 Apr
Sat 25 Mar → Mon 03 Apr
Sun 26 Mar → Tue 04 Apr

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

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 (except to add categories on the file page, because need a non-bot user to do it). 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 procedureEdit

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")|category=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]] ===
    === [[: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 category 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 subpage 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.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
  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/March 2017), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  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/March 2017.
  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. 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). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    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.