Commons:Featured picture candidates

This project page in other languages:
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, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and current month.

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

Formal things


Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

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

Set nominations

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

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

Simple tutorial for new users

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








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

Adding a new nomination

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

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

All single files:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

You may use the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policy

General rules

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

Featuring and delisting rules

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

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

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

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

Above all, be polite

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

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

See also

Table of contents

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

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

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

Featured picture candidates

File:Beilstein - Burg Hohenbeilstein und Unteres Schloss - Ansicht vom Birkenweg mit Abendsonne.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Petit Champlain at night, Quebec city.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment On balance, I think I agree. Very similar composition, same motif, but this is a larger file, brighter and has IMO a nicer composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment +1. I agree with Cmao20 too -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Friedhof ohlsdorf november 2019 30.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 16:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:FCCA GE C30-7 Chinchan - Ticlio.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri borealis) male Jaipur 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Laila Peak.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 12:56:01

  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist Nice view, but far below today's FP and QI standards. --A.Savin 12:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist --StellarHalo (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Pretty, but tiny. Give me twice this resolution and I'd vote to keep. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep. I feel like we should keep really good or striking small pictures from the early digital photography age as historical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ancien hôtel des Postes de Charleroi (DSC 0278).jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 07:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Belgium
  •   Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like a good QI, but I'm not really wowed by the light or the motif, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agreed with Peulle at first but looking at it some more the soft light and the beautiful clouds have won me over. Support is only weak because I feel it is a little bit oversharpened and there is a little colour noise. Cmao20 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sphinx moth (Eumorpha anchemolus).jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 09:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Chute Montmorency3.JPG

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 00:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 23:56:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Have another look, Basile, it does not look crispy sharp to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charles J Sharp, sharp like your honeycomb I think. If not "crispy" then normally sharp. But look, you have two nominations currently, this honeycomb measuring 3,415 × 3,415 pixels, and a moth sized 4,422 × 2,948 pixels. Your buzzard archived yesterday measured 2,600 x 4,000 pixels, and your chameleon last week 3,785 × 2,523 pixels. Now this is how detailed this landscape appears when downsized or cropped to 4'422 px large, like the biggest of your 4 last candidatures. The autofocus was set, certainly the limit of the camera was reached. More sharpness would mean over-sharpened in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was reacting to your dismissing the oppose vote with the 'crispy' adjective. I wouldn't dream of comparing the absolute sharpness of my hand-held photos using a enthusiast-level crop-frame body and a hand-held 400mm lens in average light conditions with your professional-level full-frame body and tripod with the option of testing out various settings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 19:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_Kingdom
  •   Info all by Bobulous -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Those clouds are looking weird... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This looks a bit weird to me ... maybe it's the perspective correction, making it look squeezed in on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Peulle: The "perspective correction" tool in darktable was used to transform verticals which were very far from parallel in the original version. I've found that this darktable tool does a good job of maintaining the aspect ratio so long as the "specific" lens mode is used. So even though I didn't have a tilt-shift lens when this photograph was captured, I believe this adjusted image does look like what I'd get if a tilt-shift lens had been used. Bear in mind that this was a 16mm lens, so the corners would be subject to the usual ultra-wide-angle rectilinear stretch. But the feedback is welcome, so if anything else excludes this from FP status, I'd like to hear it. --Bobulous (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a really great effort but unfortunately for me it doesn't reach FP. I think it illustrates the massive challenge of getting great photos of urban motifs where you have limited space from which to take the photo. You probably couldn't stand any further back than you did, which means you got a photo with converging verticals, but the perspective correction has introduced its own problems, making the picture look stretched at the top (the stretched cloud looks quite unnatural) and leading to a distinct loss of sharpness in the upper third of the frame. For me it just looks too obviously and aggressively perspective-corrected. I think the crop on the left is also quite tight, though this isn't the reason for my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Very well said, that's what I was thinking as well. --Peulle (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue des Écoles (Colmar) (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 14:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I understand, I made changes without saturation, the photo is better? It's recoverable? Gzen92 [discuter] 07:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a nice scene, but the houses feel more luminous than the sky. I'm guessing this is the result of zonal tone remapping ("HDR" effect)? --Bobulous (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes HDR (without, it was not good). I made changes, the photo is better? It's recoverable? Gzen92 [discuter] 07:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The image isn't that bad, simply it isn't good enough for a FP. Overall a bit too dark and presence of noise in the sky, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunately per Bastoxerri, a nice composition but just a little bit dark and uninviting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination thank you for your clarification. Gzen92 [discuter] 11:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Bela di Supra (Upper Belica).jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 10:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
  •   Info created by Liridon - uploaded by Liridon - nominated by Liridon -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry, for me it's not sharp enough. --XRay talk 11:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary IMO. --Peulle (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I'm unconvinced it should be a QI, but for the purposes of FPC, it's not one of the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see what you were trying to do with the composition, but unfortunately the light is not so good. Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Wetland - Weiherwald - Karlsruhe 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 06:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Four dogs running at golden hour in the countryside of Don Det Laos.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 00:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Benedito Calixto de Jesus - Retrato do Padre José de Anchieta, Acervo do Museu Paulista da USP.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 23:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Portraits
  •   Info created and uploaded by Sturm - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Seems unsharp and noisy, but I haven't seen the painting in the flesh. Does it really look like this? Even if it does, it's not impressive enough to me for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek, not one of our best painting reproductions. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was thinking the same thing. It's not a bad idea to nominate it, but I think the current bar for painting FPs is higher than this.--Peulle (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. When I looked at it in closeup I thought it hadn't finished loading at first. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sugarloaf Mountain with the cloud on top.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
  •   Info created and uploaded Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The quality is not perfect but this is a really amazing sight. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice, but wb seems to slightly off. —kallerna (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support A very striking scene, especially with the lines of cables partially disappearing within the cloud. The peak does appear starkly darker and more saturated than the rest of the rock, but I'm guessing this might be because it's above cloud level and less affected by moisture haze. The composition is good, the exposure fitting, and the warm colour seems right to me given how low the sun must be to cast shadows like that. --Bobulous (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not impressed by composition or quality. Should not be any need to crop (or it may be downsized). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not sure about the WB, especially given this picture taken by the same photographer at the same time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
      Comment Duplicate picture (see metadata of both, e.g. unique ID). The other version was uploaded 5 Sep 2019 as part of WLM, the now nominated version -- on 16 Jul 2020 as part of WLE. Interesting strategy... --A.Savin 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    A.Savin: Good point, but in the case this image had made it to the final of WLE 2020 in Brazil it would have been disqualified as we expect images that had not been uploaded before (that includes of course derivative works!). FYI Donatas Dabravolskas. Otherwise I agree with Charles and I find the original WB more realistic, therefore   Oppose Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Contrasts of Rio de Janeiro - Rocinha, Ipanema, and Mountains at Sunrise.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sea caves Cape Greco 9.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 14:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Blaue Federlibelle.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • He gets up early in the morning, when there is little wind and the insects are too cold to move. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, there is another FP here of the species which is good too, but this one is higher resolution and sharper - plus this one is a female and the other one is a male, so it adds something new. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment it has some stacking issues, notes added. --Ivar (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, I've added another. Amazing detail, but needs to be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose current version, too many stacking issues. --Ivar (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Honestly I think Charles and Ivar have a point. Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Walkway and hut in paddy fields with water reflection of colorful clouds at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
  •   Info Another Laotian landscape from Basile Morin. As with so many of these I think it has really special and unusual light. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't find this one among the best of Basile's landscapes. The sky is nice, but the foreground is too much about the mud puddles on the left. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, except that I feel like I'm supposed to be looking at the structure in the background and the field to the right (where the light is less appealing). — Rhododendrites talk |  23:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Impossible not to support these beautiful lines. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Absolutely, per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but not exceptional enough for FP. —kallerna (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks a lot, Cmao20, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast between the sublimity of the background and the prosaic mud in the foreground reflecting it, mud that someone has to walk around so that they and their family can eat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • weak   Oppose solid image but unfortunate light IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Galerie de la Reine, Brussels (DSCF7218).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 17:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
  •   Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality is OK, good timing. But way too much of the floor, instead I'd wish to see more of the arches (like on this photo). IMO it would have been nothing wrong about heading the camera slightly upwards and then doing perspective correction. Light is a bit weak, too. --A.Savin 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Works great for me, I like having the vanishing point near the center. -- King of ♥ 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it, but tend to agree with A.Savin about too much floor. I'd be inclined to support with a crop, but some might not like that for resolution reasons. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much floor. —kallerna (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin --StellarHalo (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture but it does look slightly unbalanced, the trouble is there is nothing much to look at in the floor. I think landscape not portrait would have been a better choice here. Cmao20 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I think that cropping away the floor up to at least above the cracked tile would stop the empty space drawing attention away from the more interesting shopfronts and covered ceiling. Also, I hate to say it, but the red-and-white safety barrier/tape in the mid-distance is a little distracting once you spot it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per King. I think cropping the floor out would only have been justified if, like this onetime FP nom of mine, the camera had been able to take in the end point of the glass roof. Also, I think (per the way some !voters said they'd support that image if there hadn't been all those people at the bottom), it emphasizes the emptiness of a usually crowded public space due to the pandemic. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Vista de Horta desde Monte da Guia, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 07-18 HDR PAN.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 16:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File: Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida collapse (May 2018) 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 14:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Humanité René Philastre and Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the second part of Victor Hugo's Les Burgraves, première production.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 09:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

These set designs were meant to e turned into physical objects, the artistry is kind of a bonus. So, yes, but I'm not quite sure whether they were an artist guide or a construction guide. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Got it. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cmao20 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Aythya novaeseelandiae, Christchurch Botanic Gardends, New Zealand.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 07:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Epipactis palustris - Keila.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 05:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Château Frontenac at night, Quebec Ville, Canada.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 02:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

IMHO the colors of the trees are due to autumn. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts It was difficult to find a landmark, but I used the road asphalt as a landmark due to its neutral color, what do you think? --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the leaves look grey, suggesting that there is ghosting from the HDR. I personally never use a sampled WB directly; I might use it as a starting point, but I always adjust it afterwards to make it look right to my eyes. -- King of ♥ 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I always try to take reference elements so that the photo is closer to the real colors, I will follow your recommendation to involve more my human factor and the appreciation of what I think the real colors were. On the other hand, with respect to the moved leaves, this is an area where the wind is common and except for specific conditions, the leaves will generally be moved, do you recommend any solution to this problem? One solution I see is to go there when the trees no longer have leaves. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some blur in the leaves is fine; it's when you add HDR that it becomes problematic. You should choose only one frame to use, and then mask out all the others. As for which frame to use, it's a balancing act: the brighter the frame, the greater the blur, but the darker the frame, the more noise there is. -- King of ♥ 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean with "mask out all the others" ? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some HDR programs allow you to tell it to ignore some of your exposures in some parts of the image that you choose. -- King of ♥ 17:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Has magic for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: tilted. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite some flaws, this is a super photo for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like it in general but some areas look too bright to me and therefore the result doesn't look so realistic, not sure how to vote here, to be honest, therefore   Neutral Poco a poco (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Poco a poco, King of Hearts: I rebuilt from the raw again to fix the too bright areas. Please, let me know what do you think. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks,   Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Big improvement, but I think it's significant enough that people who voted to support should also be pinged. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very striking, but there's something unnatural feeling about certain parts that I can't explain. Firstly, the stars look like they've been added in artificially (their positions have moved when compared to your original version), and they have an odd mix of coma and what looks like JPEG artefacts. Secondly, parts of the sky have a blotchy/wavy appearance that doesn't look like anything I've seen in digital photos before. Thirdly, the tones have a feel similar to most recent estate agent photographs, where all areas have the same narrow range of luminance. Would I be right to guess that some sort of "HDR" or "AI" enhancement software has been used? It is a great scene, but this version doesn't feel believable to me. --Bobulous (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Bobulous I did not add any saturation or any kind of artificial fading or filters. The colors are actually naturals (you will find the RAW images here: 1, 2 and 3). I use Aurora HDR to assembling the images and Topaz Denoise to noise reduction and IMHO some lighting changes in the sky could be result of light pollution?. Finally I also apply a lens distortion correction (possibly the movement you mention)--Wilfredor (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sunday Creek Bog2.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 00:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
  •   Info: Sunday Creek Bog seen from the Spruce Bog Boardwalk, Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. All by -- -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, highlights adjusted too much, dull light. —kallerna (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I quite like it. The mix of autumn colors, reflection of the sky, the curve of the lake and width of frame make for a really pleasant, quiet scene. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Rhododendrites --StellarHalo (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per kallerna; it looks like the shadows and highlights were pushed too far for the sky. (File:Sunday Creek Bog.jpg looks a bit more believable) --Trougnouf (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It looks more natural with the new edit. The scene doesn't wow me but I have nothing against it (though if it came down to replacing the other shot with this wider one I would be in favor. I didn't initially realize that it was featured). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I noticed that you had to restitch it to perform modifications, that's a lot of work. What I usually do when I have to work with a separate editor is an initial processing in darktable with the same exposure, white balance, denoising, and nothing else, then export with the Linear rec2020 RGB color profile (which is the same as darktable's working profile) as 16-bit tiff (hugin doesn't seem to work well with 32-bit tiff but the difference should be insignificant), that way virtually no information is lost and you can do the stitching in hugin or whatever else, then finally reimport it and do all of the editing in darktable as if you were working on the raw file (minus wb, demosaic, denoising). This way further edits can always be done (and it's less prone to overprocessing by doing multiple passes of the same module). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the workflow tips! It can get very tedious to redo the whole thing indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Super resolution but the colours are very similar to the other FP linked by Trougnouf, and I agree about the sky, the whole effect looks a bit like overdone HDR (I know it's not HDR, but that's how it looks). Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done: reprocessed Kallerna, Trougnouf, Cmao20 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support due to the technical issues, but otherwise ... this is what autumn in the north looks like more often than not. We don't always need sun and a clear azure sky to make it beautiful. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Wroclaw- Most Zwierzyniecki.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 22:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Poland
  •   Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but with the left cut off the nice line created by the tracks just doesn't lead anywhere. -- King of ♥ 03:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It leads across the bridge. Strong sense of motion to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice view, but would expect a little bit of the left arch of the bridge. --XRay talk 08:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King --StellarHalo (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Kekek, the leading lines are actually really good. Too much NR for me, but still deserves the star. Cmao20 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition not working for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. A QI yes, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The composition with regard to the bridge works well. The starburst from the lanterns is a little distracting, but doesn't really clash with the curves of the bridge, so I think it's acceptable. The motion blur of the vehicle (bus) in the far distance is not ideal, but very small in the scene. And the advert which says "BAR" is not ideal, but somewhat mitigated by the fact its bleached by specular light. Overall, though, the sweeping curves of the bridge side and top save the scene, and the exposure and colours are just right for drawing attention to them. --Bobulous (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Port de Sète - Octobre 2020.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 18:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, wb off (?). —kallerna (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. Beautiful complementarity of the breakwaters on the left and right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I kind of agree with Kallerna, this is a good quality photo but the composition doesn't appeal to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The complementarity of the breakwaters is nice but it's hard to notice with everything else going on in the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:2017 Pociąg do nieba we Wrocławiu.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 15:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fernsicht von der Hasenmatt.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 11:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Solothurn
  •   Info Far view from the Hasenmatt to the Swiss Alps in a distance of 150 - 170 km. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wide panorama of exactly what? Grass and hazy valley? —kallerna (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A shot that could have been great, but with those hazy conditions we don't really get to see the view.--Peulle (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support For me the haziness is the whole point. I really like the silvery/blue colours. Cmao20 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With this sort of view, the trick is to compress the perspective with a telephoto lens, not exaggerate the perspective with a ultra-wide-angle-panorama so that the photogenic hills are tiny. Most of the image is grass. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao; I like that the distant mountains look as far off as the description says they are, sort of dreamlike. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao--Tesla - 💬 21:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Borkum, Hauptstrand -- 2020 -- 2691 (bw).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 06:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Of course there's more information in the photo with colours. Remembering the scope of the project, I always prefer non-edited pictures, artistic filters may be used elsewhere. —kallerna (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-edited isn't easy. I always take photographs in RAW. So you need the development. ;-) (And BTW: What do think is a "non-edited" image? Only taken with automatic features of your camera?) And black-and-white itself isn't artistic. Why should I remember the scope? --XRay talk 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • B&W is definitely a filter, a stylistic device. I think you know what I mean with non-edited images, especially nowadays when the social media influences using of filters etc. in images. —kallerna (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we have different perceptions of what goes on in black and white. You think more of modern with social media, my memory hangs on the legendary Ilford Pan F Plus 50 and another way of developing a photograph. But so be it. --XRay talk 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Simple, very good composition, and I like it much better in black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support B&W is about textures and contrasts and here it work very well. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I just don't feel any wow from this. I can appreciate the artistic effort, and if I were judging a competition with that as the criteria, it would certainly rank high. But not at FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry these beach chairs are a common photo motif and this scene isn't special enough. Background too busy. The B&W treatment would work if there was a texture contrast between the chairs and the smooth sand/sea, but the sand/sea isn't smooth. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --StellarHalo (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:SL Bundala NP asv2020-01 img08.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2020 at 12:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Monumento a Johann Strauss, Stadtpark, Viena, Austria, 2020-01-31, DD 102-104 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 18:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
  •   Info Blue hour shot of the monument to Johann Strauss, inaugurated in 1921 and located in the Stadtpark, Vienna, Austria. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Red channel appears to be slightly blown. -- King of ♥ 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Are you suggesting that I reduce the saturation of the red channel or rather a WB ajustment? Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Just a simple highlight reduction. -- King of ♥ 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      Done, but according to Lr there was no overexposure Poco a poco (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      Support, sometimes it's more about the visual effect. For landscapes I like to push the highlights as far as I can without blowing them out, to really make use of the full dynamic range available, but I've found that for structures being too close to 255 reduces the apparent detail even if nothing is actually blown out. -- King of ♥ 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful light and a very sharp, detailed photo. Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Surroundings are dead and dull, and the most of the photo is of surroundings. Light on the statue is nice. —kallerna (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, the monument stands out well in these light conditions. The trees are creating quite mysterious atmosphere and work as good balanced elements. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Even if the light is nice, I find the surroundings and the overall atmosphere a bit creepy. --StellarHalo (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @StellarHalo Isn't it a good thing? Good photo should wake some feelings in us and they don't have to always be bubbly and happy. I'd be proud to make a photo with creepy atmosphere :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but dark and gloomy feelings are not something I would associate with a monument of a composer. StellarHalo (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support in agreement with Podzemnik and Cmao20 --GRDN711 (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful music lights up a dark, bleak world. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Amilcare Ponchielli (before 1886) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO000794 - Restoration.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 18:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Ikan Kekek I'm sorry, it is 255x178 millimeters, not centimeters. Please forgive my mistake. --LutiV (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Of course! I thought so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Swamp Sylhet.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 14:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
  •   Info created & uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment A bit tilted, and the blurred background has been inadvertently sharpened leading to noise. -- King of ♥ 20:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing composition outweighs quality issues. Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question downsized? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose assuming downsized Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd like to see some work done on this photo per KoH and Charles. Also, minor point, but it's undercategorized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, per others and my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful composition --Augustgeyler (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition is very good but the technical quality is not.--Peulle (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Salses-le-Château - Forteresse 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 12:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful, colourful panorama with a nice sweep to it. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive. Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same picture as everyone else. This photo seems to be neither colorful nor impressive. Could someone from the "support" camp maybe explain what I'm supposed to be seeing here? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I really like this image. But IMO there are too much JPEG artifacts. --XRay talk 07:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose large panorama of which maybe 20 % of the area is interesting. —kallerna (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't think so, for the guardhouse at the left belongs to the fort, there is the entrance. You can see the access leading fom the guardhose to the fort as a hollow-way and it is therefore an essential element of the whole complex, an elementary part of the defence. Therefore I think the whole area is interesting with all his fortifications, and not only the central building. --Llez (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
      •   Comment doesn’t change the fact that majority on the photo consists of something else than the buildings, mostly dry grass and dull midday sky. 11:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
        •   Comment I don't think that a Glacis (you call it "something else"), an important part of a fortification, is only "dry grass", and also that 9:17 a.m. (see metadata!) is "dull midday sky". --Llez (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
          •   Comment Then 09:17 was too late, dry grass is what I see. —kallerna (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Percival --StellarHalo (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per XRay.--Peulle (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; we have had a lot of panoramas to choose from and the bar is higher than this can cross. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Too much JPEG artifacts? No. All in all, this pano gives a complete view of the structure. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Calidris alba group edit.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 08:38:26

  •   Info Quite small. Half the birds are not sharp. It's just a group of birds. No wow factor. Distracting seaweeds. Two birds and a seaweed got cropped and then badly cloned out. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist Not one of the best images on here --StellarHalo (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist poor composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist I like the original version better. This doesn't suck and was probably a good photo in 2009, but I agree that it's not an FP now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above, it's not terrible but there is nothing special about it. I might have voted to keep if more of the birds were looking at the camera. Cmao20 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree.--Peulle (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Claude Monet - Haystacks.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 08:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Important info: This version actually has a thin bottom part cropped out (most likely the fault of Sotheby's). I also uploaded another smaller version that has that part but crops out the right side instead. I am nominating this version because it is larger and the crop is less destructive.

  •   Support --StellarHalo (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    It still does not explain why this but not any of the other thirty versions (many of those have a good quality too). Have you thought about a set? --Andrei (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    Well, out of the handful that qualify for FP on technical basis alone, I believe this version's lighting best conveys the spirit of the series. Would cherrypicking the best ones for nomination qualify as a set? StellarHalo (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not, there needs to be a coherent message, and preferable for paintings the reproductions should be done by one person/company because we expect a set to be consistent in quality. But cherry-picking a few to nominate individually is fine. -- King of ♥ 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per KoH, unfortunately for the set it would have to be all-or-nothing, but this painting is great and really conveys a lot about the overall style. Cmao20 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think it's really right to award a star to an incomplete reproduction. I think that's below the standard of excellence we should demand for reproductions of flat artworks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    This view is entirely fair. Though keep in mind that the few available reproductions of this Haystack version each has a small part cropped out, most likely due to the fact that it has always been in private hands. StellarHalo (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Understood. Regardless of the outcome of this nomination, if this is the best available reproduction, it should be nominated at COM:VIC. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Jekleni most pri Radečah (Iron bridge on Sava river at Radeče; IG. GRIDL fabrik, 1894).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 16:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment True, on left side. I will remove when on PC. If any other place mark. --Mile (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Ikan Kekek check now. --Mile (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I see some in the middle, some on the right side. I'll try to mark some spots, but in general, this is an issue in the foreground and arguably near middleground. The further away the wood is, the less visible the problem is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I see, i was editing trees (forest), will try to solve that today.--Mile (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek i try to solve some. I think its not CA, i saw other shots, its on the edge where fisheye lose resolution and result of moire came out. --Mile (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK. But my feeling is that this is a very good composition and yet I find whatever is happening to the wood quite distracting. I'll look at the photo again tomorrow and see if I change my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Vliegenzwam (Amanita muscaria). Locatie De Famberhorst. 27-09-2020 (d.j.b.).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 15:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks for your response. I don't see any halos. Please post a note.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've marked three places where there are a small focus-stacking errors which look like halos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. Looks more like the faded colors of the leaves in the background.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Did you check the individual photo with the edge of the mushroom in focus. Was the 'halo' there? I suspect notǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others including Charles' delisting suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Kekek Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support But get rid of the halos, which go all around the perimeter of the mushroom. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Temporary oppose. Unfortunately Famberhorst, you've reduced the halo effect, but there are now visible dark circles from the cloning tool. Just meeds 20 minutes of boring rework! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
*   Done. Minor fixes. Been busy for almost an hour.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. I expected this nomination, since i saw this picture as a QI candidate -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Amanitaceae

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sun 18 Oct → Fri 23 Oct
Mon 19 Oct → Sat 24 Oct
Tue 20 Oct → Sun 25 Oct
Wed 21 Oct → Mon 26 Oct
Thu 22 Oct → Tue 27 Oct
Fri 23 Oct → Wed 28 Oct

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

Wed 14 Oct → Fri 23 Oct
Thu 15 Oct → Sat 24 Oct
Fri 16 Oct → Sun 25 Oct
Sat 17 Oct → Mon 26 Oct
Sun 18 Oct → Tue 27 Oct
Mon 19 Oct → Wed 28 Oct
Tue 20 Oct → Thu 29 Oct
Wed 21 Oct → Fri 30 Oct
Thu 22 Oct → Sat 31 Oct
Fri 23 Oct → Sun 01 Nov

Closing a featured picture promotion request

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2020), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2020.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night shots, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2020), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.