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:Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 23:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hypogée 17.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 21:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - My tendency would be to simply give a supporting vote to this photo. I like the composition, the view and the context. But first, I thought I'd throw out a question to everyone: What other photos you might compare this to, and how you would appraise them in comparison to one another? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Metro de São Paulo, Luz Station, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 17:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thanks Colin, please could you try give me a configuration recomendation for this shoot, without tripod in a absolutly darked area and the main subject in movement. --The Photographer 20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Clarion Hotel Post 2015 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 16:21:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Former central post office building in the centre of Gothenburg, Sweden. Today, Clarion Hotel Post. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - There's a lot going on in this picture, yet at full-page size, it feels peaceful to me. At full size, there are some blown out lights and not everything is sharp, but I think it's a very good picture, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot of the tram. :) cart-Talk 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Monasterio de Jvari, Miskheta, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 08-10 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 13:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Interior view of Jvari, a UNESCO World Heritage Site monastery from the 6th century located near Mtskheta, former capital of the Kingdom of Iberia, Georgia. Poco2 13:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great view! I find this dramatic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not as good as some of your other ceilings. The stone isn't as interesting as a subject; it seems a bit brighter than I would assume (but could be wrong); the cross isn't quite perpendicular to the camera. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    Colin, I've reduced the exposure, your guess was right, it was too bright overall. I've also improved symmetry with a new crop (cropped a bit from the left side) and the cross should stand better now Poco2 20:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be nice see the base too --The Photographer 22:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Vliegden (Pinus sylvestris) tussen bloeiende heide. Locatie, Schaopedobbe (Schapenpoel) 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 04:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Pine tree (Pinus sylvestris) between flowering heather. Location, Schaopedobbe (Schapenpoel) in the Netherlands. All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - To my mind, this is a really good portrait of the tree, with the flowers as colorful supporting cast. In this context, I don't mind the unsharpness or motion blur of the flowers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Well captured and sharp. --King of ♠ 05:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You could put down red channel a bit, see white clouds.--Mile (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: To the clouds a little lighter?--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Famberhorst I think red channel for all picture, just put down and look when pic will feel OK. I mentioned clouds where this is seen mostly, since they should be white. --Mile (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support but per PetarM --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Is this really one of the finest pictures on Commons? It lacks wow for me. I would also like to see the trunk. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: healthy detached (Pinus sylvestris) is widely ramified and looks like this. the trunk is so much to see.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Foreground. -- -donald- (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The colors and composition are just right. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:RUS-2016-SPB-Monument to Nicholas I of Russia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 22:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info All by Godot13-- Godot13 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Godot13 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support but slightly oversharpened. --King of ♠ 01:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - This photo really looks best to me at full screen, not full size. A lot of its appeal for me is in the cloud formations, which can no longer be seen at full magnification as I can no longer see the whole. The left crop bugs me a little because it bisects a car, but I think the photo is good enough, overall, for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support as per the King Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per my !vote at the enwiki FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Lapita image.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 13:42:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
  •   Info created by en:Dubai Parks and Resorts - uploaded by User:DPR 2016 - nominated by Bluerasberry -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- This is an architectural mockup of a hotel at a theme park in Dubai. I am not aware of any other architectural mockups being in Commons. I can only presume that this image is representative of its genre just because I know it was produced in the context of Dubai's well regarded luxury industry. The image is striking to me for its content. I think it meets Commons technical criteria. I came to know about this image from an OTRS request and got confirmation from their general legal counsel about their ownership of copyright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's nice to see you here again, Bluerasberry. This mockup is really cool, and I'll support it once a surprising little dust spot is dealt with. It's directly above the left side of the building or part of a building that's at an angle with the rightmost building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the welcome. I wish I could be here more often. I confirm seeing it in the sky midway up the picture from that location. It is a black spot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't you think the black spot should be removed? It looked stray to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek The spot was a flaw in the image. However, the image as I presented it was the one used to establish the theme park. I am not sure if that makes this image "historically significant" or if it is better to correct obvious mistakes in official media. If I had the editing skills I would have removed the spot, just because I think that makes for a better archived image. Thanks PetarM for making the call to correct the flaws. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well this is something new. :) Just a question, since this is just a mockup and not a photo of an actual place, should this not be listed as a candidate for 'Non-photographic media' perhaps sub-section '/Computer-generated' instead of '/Places/Architecture'? cart-Talk 20:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@W.carter: Yes! I am not here routinely and I am not aware of category conventions. Thanks. I changed it. If both apply then someone can remove the : from the former category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please remove the thin white border on the right and bottom. --King of ♠ 01:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not have photo editing skills for a quick response. There are two requests - spot removal and cropping of a border. If others have other requests then share, and I will make arrangements to improve the picture and share again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Trimed, and "bird" removed. Good drawing. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support and thanks Mile for lending a hand, that was nice of you. :) cart-Talk 08:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks, Mile. That small problem having been dealt with, I'm happy to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As I have a background in computer graphics, I am happy to see such an image here. However, I have to say that this is not state of the art in computer graphics, as it shows several issues like missing reflections in the pool, and missing/incorrect cast shadows. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
It might not be state of the art in technology but I think by virtue of this being used by a major construction company for an extravagant luxury resort, it apparently is the sort of image which top contemporary professionals in Dubai will accept. I am not sure how expectations in computer graphics vary by year and origin of production. Can you make a guess about the year in which pool reflections and shadows been a thing? I have never seen anything like this and cannot comment on its quality or the extent to which it is representative of an art field. Was art like this produced 10 years ago? Will art 10 years from now look like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support purely for its accomplishment as a CG architectural rendering. If it were a photo I would consider the nearly-blown sunset sky a deal-breaker. But, since it isn't, since it's what the creator chose, I'm OK with it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Gear stick (FIAT 500 Abarth).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 12:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white
  •   Info Handheld shot. Its BW shot; to remove unwanted combination of natural and reflector light. Its more nice than color version. All by me. -- Mile (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Too dark overall. I think File:2016 Porst Reflex CX6.JPG (and File:Sony A77 II.jpg to a lesser extent, though it's pushing it) are good examples of low-key FPs, but here there are just not enough bright parts to balance out the dark background. --King of ♠ 01:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose also; I like the idea but that weird left crop bothers me a little. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I put second option, check again King of, Daniel Case. --Mile (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King, low-key and B&W is really difficult, low-key for reasons mentioned above and B&W ussually requires a bit more contrast than just removing the color from a pic. Sorry. cart-Talk 11:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination If FIAT would give me a car i could try. Will try somehow what i wanted to do, with better light. --Mile (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Pogled kon Prespansko Ezero od Baba planina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 11:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I still think it would be better to do this crop, but since no-one else agrees, and despite the objections of the two opposing voters so far, I   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The foreground underlines the wide landscape IMO --Ermell (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep, I agree with Ermell, it adds to the "prairie-effect", not often seen in combination with blue mountains. Nice and unusual with three kind of vastness (sky, mountains, prairie). Geotag pretty please. cart-Talk 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Geotag was added.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed (excesive dramatic filter and color saturation) --The Photographer 00:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Nice colors and layers of foreground, background, and sky, but not enough wow that I can forgive the unsharpness in the lower left corner of an 8 MP image (and the image is actually a little soft throughout the frame). --King of ♠ 04:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Fishing huts at Holländaröd.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 09:56:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info There is a distinct lack of palaces and grand monuments in my neighborhood, instead I give you this. All by me, -- cart-Talk 09:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 09:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like this photo, but I'd like you to say something about your choice of right crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I was anticipating that question. :) The sort of "main objects" in the picture are the two very wonky and tilted huts next to the cropped one, but in order to see how askew they are you need some kind of reference, cropping the pic immediately after them only made it look like the pic needed some perspective adjustment. The cropped hut/shed is about 3-4 times larger than the rest of the huts so having all of it in the photo would have resulted in that dominating the pic. You can see a larger part of that hut (or rather small house) in this photo. The old shed you see on Google Street View has been replaced with this new larger one. So I opted for having a portion of it, about the size of the other huts, in the photo as reference and "anchor" on the right side. cart-Talk 12:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too sharpened. Poor composition IMO: Right side is too tight and upper side has too much sky. Sorry--Lmbuga (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear, other than stitching five photos together to get maximum sharpness on all the huts (focus stacking), denoising the sky and toning down the white parts a bit, there has been no post-processing at all done to the photo. If it appears "sharpened" that came straight out of the camera and there is unfortunately nothing I can do about it. If there are other folks who would like a bit more gravel road and less sky, that can be arranged though since this is cropped from a wider panorama. cart-Talk 18:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The right crop, with half of a hut, is probably the weakest part of the composition. I think it can be improved. --King of ♠ 01:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colors. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit


  •   Info So, King of Hearts and Martin Falbisoner, since I don't have a full photo of the (ugly) large hut/small house on the right side the only remaining option is to crop it out completely (guess you read my initial comment). It changed the pic a bit, hopefully for the better. :) Also 'pinging' Ikan Kekek, ArionEstar, Lmbuga, INeverCry and Daniel Case to let them know what's going on. cart-Talk 09:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ...ooops, forgot to support it myself. It's a different "view" than I originally saw but it has grown on me since it is more complete. Score another one for this fab community. :) cart-Talk 18:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I prefer this version, in fact. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this one better too. lNeverCry 09:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Works better nice and tight ... yes! Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kammergericht, Berlin-Schöneberg, Treppenhalle (1), 160809, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 04:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Entrance hall of Kammergericht (higher regional court) in Berlin-Schöneberg. All by me. --Code (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 05:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Main stuff around here is stairway, which needs some light - to become "point of interest". --Mile (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support very good picture. I find it utterly amazing that "higher regional court" seems to be the official (though misleading, as almost disparaging) translation of OLG. But I'm no lawyer... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very pretty, excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe a little oversharpened. --King of ♠ 07:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 12:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lmbuga (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 00:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you! We have plan to translate. @HHubi: you can help to translate? —Niklitov (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  Done. Translated to English. Upload new versions file. —Niklitov (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Could be svg --The Photographer 12:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, image created by PhotoShop. Only png/jpg format.( —Niklitov (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You could Import this artwork from Photoshop to illustrator and export like SVG --The Photographer 10:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, thank you! —Niklitov (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per The Photographer. There is no rule that says you have to use Photoshop; there is certainly software that could be used to create an .SVG version. It's easier to translate, for one thing. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Júlio Prestes Station in São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 11:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 11:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The sky could be denoised a bit more, and there are also some dust spots you didn't fix, for example on either side of the flag, to the right of the top floor of the tower below the clock and at least four to the extreme right of and a bit higher than the clock. The focus on the building is a bit soft, maybe because of the pollution haze that you've mentioned (if I remember correctly) is always in the air in Sao Paulo. I won't pass judgment on the photo now because I'd like to see the results of whatever revisions you may make. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Excellent review. This picture was taken using tripod, I can't underestand why the focus is soft (maybe the pollution problem). I will fix each of your nice recomendations, thanks ! --The Photographer 16:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is good, it is framed well. I trust the dust spots will be fixed, so I will disregard this for a moment. I think it is sufficiently sharp. Exposure control is good. However, it does not wow me at all, I am afraid. To be frank I find the composition boring. The cropped statue on the LHS does not help.Sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I uploaded another version trying fix the problems commented by you. Slaunger and Ikan Kekek. Please, let me know what do you think and Slaunger, I underestand, you don't need change your vote --The Photographer 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It is better with the dust spots fixed, but I does not change the overall impression; and thanks for accepting that ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I will have to disagree with Slaunger on this one. --King of ♠ 03:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still seems to me to have a dark halo. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 05:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - Much better. The main thing that gives me pause is the crop of the statue. Otherwise, I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I was looking with Beria the best point of view to show the complete structure as possible, however, there is a tree that has grown disproportionately and I preferred cut. Perhaps in the future go back and look elsewhere, this time without a tripod. --The Photographer 10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a QI for sure but it holds no wow or me at all. It is also a bit "heavy" on the left side so it seems to be leaning/tilted to that side much more than it actually does (some of the vertical lines are leaning that way) and this is unfortunately underlined by the parked taxi car (with the almost rude licence plate...^^), plus there are traces of CA in several places on the building. Sorry. cart-Talk 09:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting your remark about the licence plate, lol --The Photographer 12:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. And clear perspective distortion: See left vertical lines of the picture. The streetlight of the right is not an adequate reference--Lmbuga (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Bullfight in Maracaibo Monumental Toros Square, Venezuela.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 10:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support --Joalpe (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment - No vote by me right now, but I just want to mention that there are currently two FPs of bullfights: 1, 2. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Three FPs, if you add this. (I hope the bull/fighter is not fake this time :-). However, similar issues to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo Monumental 3.jpg. Soft, oversaturated and overprocessed. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Your comment is very important for me, the bull is not a fake, however, it is the composition of two photographs in the same minute of time, using two different lenses (18-55 and 70-300 mm). I think this image is too poor quality as to be FP. That day was cloudy and it was getting dark, I could not do a better job because they are moving pictures. Thanks hacker --The Photographer 11:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2009K6998 - Гніздичів (Львівський).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 08:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 06:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • LOL! I didn't say it actually could be! I said it looks like it could be. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I love her braids. lNeverCry 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A little bit of lateral motion blur, so not perfect, but contrast is nice and has great HV as a document of how women dressed at that place in that time. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --cart-Talk 09:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Temple aux six colonnes 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 22:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I'll add that I wouldn't want you to withdraw your nomination right away because I'm mildly opposing. Let's see what other people think; INC has already voted to support the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Ikan Kekek it is more lightened now an more sharp have look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's definitely improved, but the temple still is less sharp than I'd prefer, so no change in my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think you've gone too far with your white balance adjustments (see history) and generally a bit overprocessed. (I recommend you use Lightrooms CA removal tool rather than try to knock out the purple and magental colours). The scene is ok for QI but not enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Colin (talk) I corrected the WB and i used the CA removal tool ... this is featurable beacause the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not work for me - low wow, and I think the WB is too warm. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Slaunger (talk) the wow come from the fact that the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene ... and made the WB more natural --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slaunger. -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Zcebeci (talk) the wow come from the fact that the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene ... and made the WB more natural --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin, who saved me time by saying everything I was going to say. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Daniel Case (talk) I corrected the WB and i used the CA removal tool ... this is featurable beacause the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There is wow for me if I believe there is; not because someone else tells me I should feel it. If you have to explain to me why I should, there isn't any wow. And even after your explanation (which you've already tried on several other editors), I don't think that's wow. And even if it is, the picture still looks to me like it was overbrightened. I can't imagine myself seeing that if I were standing there. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Daniel Case I disagree strongly with "If you have to explain to me why I should, there isn't any wow." Maybe if you are some photo curator at a famous art gallery then you can refuse to be prompted wrt what makes a picture special, but IMO nominators don't do this nearly enough. Some of our candidates are obviously wow and some of them require more work to appreciate. Since we are all learning photo criticism here, including nominators, I think we should encourage nominators to explain why the image is special. But really the best time to do that is when making the nomination, not after several opposes, and it only needs to be said once. You disagree with his opinion on why it is special, but other than repeating three times, I don't think the nominator has done anything wrong and your response is a bit rude. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I would consider my response rude if I had been the only person he made this argument to. However he made it to several people, including you. Most nominators here understand that "wow" is a subjective factor, and if someone doesn't find it in a picture you just accept that and don't try to convince them they should see it. To do so anyway is like trying to argue someone should fall in love with you. If I seemed rude it was because I find this sort of attempt to buffalo not only my aesthetic judgement but others to be rude as well. Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
So you admit your rude response was a reaction to seeing posts to several other people. Perhaps IssamBarhoumi wanted a personal conversation with each of us, rather than a group. I don't know, but other than the copy/paste message being unnecessary, this reply was polite and factual and what is wrong with a nominator telling you why he loves the photo? But you rudely tell him you aren't interested in his opinion (the photographer's opinion!) and will make your own mind up thank-you-very-much. As for "buffalo", I'm not familiar with this term, but on looking it up, I suggest you are using the wrong word and over-reacting. Your description of "most nominators" is irrelevant: what does it matter what you think most nominators do or how they react. You should start with the assumption that the nominator thinks this is among our finest and when you disagree with that, you should be polite enough to let him explain why. It's really, really rude of you to tell him to be quiet and keep his opinions to himself. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: " ...what is wrong with a nominator telling you why he loves the photo?" Implying that I should love it for the same reason. I grant after reading these comments that this may be a fault of the language barrier; I would also say that I appreciate very much that Issam is being gracious about it, as gracious as native English speakers should be.

"You should start with the assumption that the nominator thinks this is among our finest" As I always do. I had tried to gently explain in my oppose !vote why it was not; citing your reasoning, which I thought was sound.

"It's really, really rude of you to tell him to be quiet and keep his opinions to himself." To read that into my response ... wow! How presumptuous! Makes me feel like I'm in some failing relationship, not a discussion among people who regard themselves as colleagues.

To explain what I feel like I am being goaded into explaining so that you can use some aspect of it against me in whatever reply you make, because I feel that such attempt would be transparently unsuccessful to third-party observers although because I respect your tenacity I know that won't stop you from trying, this whole conversation might not have occurred or even been necessary if Issam had prefaced his statement about why the picture had wow with "I think ..." or something similar. That would have made it more clearly an opinion, and I respect other people's opinions here even when don't agree with them.

Not that that means there isn't anything to apologize for on my part, so Issam, آسف. In the future I will take into account in situations like this that there are linguistic and cultural barriers we may not have been aware of. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of side comments here: First, I believe I also have been overly blunt at times with Issam, and that's partly because I misunderstood what he was saying when I thought he posted that he considered that all of his photos could be FPs (he later explained that's not what he meant to say). English is probably at least his third language. Second, there are cultural differences between Issam and most of the rest of us. I find that he is very polite and somewhat formal. Of course he can speak for himself, but my feeling is that I've never seen him do or say anything that seemed heedlessly or intentionally rude to me, and I definitely don't think he has ever intended to be anything but friendly, positive and constructive. Sometimes it's easy to forget how much scope there is on an international site like this for intercultural misunderstanding, and also for intercultural enlightenment. I'm not sure either "side" in this discussion is really at fault, ultimately, as I think two good people simply had a misunderstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
dear Colin so kind from you <3 but really I do not consider all critics of friends here as rude ... I want really to learn so I consider them all piece of advices <3 so dear Daniel Case (talk) and Ikan Kekek (talk) next time I will mention the FP reason in the description as I did in this one and I will only answer why I featured it if asked, I am sorry to everybody here for the bothering I may cause somtimes without intending that --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to second what Colin said above: It's great and really helpful when photographers explain why they consider a photo featurable. So if it were up to me, I would definitely want you to let us know how you're thinking about a photograph. As for the rest, no worries on my account! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it is nice when photographers explain what's featurable about an image—some technical detail or historical fact. However, saying what in effect amounts to "this wows me, so it should wow you" is counterproductive to serious discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Daniel if "this wows me, so it should wow you" causes you to get so upset then perhaps keep those feelings to yourself. IssamBarhoumi didn't actually mention "wow". He said "this is featurable because ..." which, is standard on en:wp and I would be happy to see on Commons. I see no language barriers here, only attitude problems. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Colin: Please reread the discussion above in toto, not with an eye toward finding nits to damn me with. Slaunger said it had "low wow", to which Issam made the same copypasted response. I had simply seconded your response, and since Issam's response took in Slaunger's as well as yours and mine, I adopted the language of his critique since I felt "low wow" summed it up most succinctly from an aethetic perspective (whereas you had pointed to some technical issues). Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Daniel, I'm not talking about your original review, but your response to IssamBarhoumi. I'm not "finding nits". Your comments "There is wow for me if I believe there is; not because someone else tells me I should feel it. If you have to explain to me why I should, there isn't any wow." is patronising, arrogant, rude and unacceptable and I never want to see you talk to a nominator like that again. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Colin, I do not agree with you that Daniel's comment is "patronising, arrogant, rude and unacceptable". This is just a too extreme. Your follow-up comment "and I never want to see you talk to a nominator" is on the contrary patronizing. I think I would say Daniels response could have been friendlier, but I also found it weird the way a lot of almost similar responses were duplicated. It appears that IssamBarhoumi has not taken offense by it either, but has acknowledged the feedback and proposals. I do not think it is worth spending more time on this to be honest. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you again ... let peace flow on the community ... I learned lot and I will not cause that again ... let us see something else may be it could win ;) --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Template:Withdarw --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Opera Theatre 07-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 14:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It is just a flagstaff (no architectural part) and there was no flag. I don't have any other crop. --A.Savin 20:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - The cut-off flag pole is still bugging me, but I don't ask people to clone out things that are there, and the photo is otherwise beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Ikan. Two remarks: please embedd a correct color profile (as Colin would happily point out ;-) ); maybe the image is a tad oversaturated --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Maybe the greens in the foreground are a bit oversaturated. --King of ♠ 06:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • King of Hearts It is weird, I have the same impression by just looking at it. I tried downloading, and technically, there are absolutely no blown areas in the green channel. Actually, the histogram is very "nice". Well, still, I agree the foreground vegetation looks extraordinarily colorful. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support as say King --Verde78 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per the Photographer. -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support At first I found it puzzling that the crop around the benches had not the same space at the left and right hand sides. However, from looking at the geolocation, I realize the bench/flower arrangement appears to be not perfectly symmetrically aligned with the opera house, which gives a natural explanation. Very nice light and colors. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Who says all the cool Russian cultural buildings have to be in St. Petersburg? Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera - Melilotus albus - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 13:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
  •   Info Italian bee (Apis mellifera ligustica) on the white sweet clover (Melilotus albus). All by Ivar (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice picture. This is the first time I've seen a bee with wax all over its leg. Is that unusual, in your experience? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • While I'm not a bee expert, I have seen pollen sacs before. I don't think there is any wax in them, but pollen sacs are very common. cart-Talk 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh I see. I've never noticed bees carrying those before. I'll look for them more now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: All worker and queen honeybees/bumblebees (except drones and cuckoo bumblebees) have pollen baskets. Foraging bees bring pollen back to the hive, where it's the primary source of protein for the young bees. --Ivar (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support When we were kids we called the debated structure "Sammlerhosen"-collectors' trousers. We thought this is the nectar out of the blooms that is going to become the honey in the beehive. --AWeith (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support From the same series; but think the composition is unique enough to feature separately. Jee 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you geocode it please? It adds value. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Sweeet! Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Centro histórico, Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 221-223 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 12:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Blue hour view of the pagan temple in the Bazaar square, Old city (İçəri Şəhər), Baku, Azerbaijan. The Old City of Baku, that dates at least from the 12th century, became the first UNESCO World Heritage Site in the country in 2000. Poco2 12:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 12:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support unusual perspective - that works --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like this picture and I'm supporting it, but if it would improve the picture overall if you would denoise the sky and sharpen the further reaches of the loggia (or whatever I should call it) just a touch, do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    Ikan:   Done --Poco2 21:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This looks like one of those images that you find only by looking around. Most photographers would have just played it safe with the portico ... you made the courtyard work with it. There are some other minor technical issues but I chalk them up to the exposure required. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral mainly over composition. The bottom crop is a bit too tight on the near pillar, and dividing it in half is not as effective as rule of thirds IMO. --King of ♠ 06:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral too yellow --Verde78 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    Verde78, that should be fixed now --Poco2 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Arc monumental.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 13:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is really nice! You have certainly improved your photos since you started out here. :) You don't happen to have a version with a little extra space over the arc? The top crop is kind of close to it. cart-Talk 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment dear cart-Talk I make it wider on the top --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Composition-wise it improved the pic, but unfortunately it also increased that overexposed area Christian is talking about. Had the additional area been more normal, it would have been a different thing to consider. Sorry, but overall this will be an   Oppose from me. cart-Talk 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky have been overexposed, this is not fixable Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment dear Christian Ferrer (talk) yes this is true because the sky is there and without that we can not have this colour inside the arch --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  Comment ok i will take care with light next time thank you Christian Ferrer (talk) and thank you cart-Talk --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)   I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:A look inside an iceberg (2), Liefdefjord, Svalbard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 12:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, Sir! This really covers all the bases, as a great photo that's of supreme encyclopedic and educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 21:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support How yonic. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. A bit low on wow factor at preview size, but it really comes to life at 100%. --King of ♠ 06:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Northern fulmars chasing Kittywakes away from their fishing ground.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 10:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Fights between birds
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I know this image does not obey to many photographic rules. I nominate it anyway because I think it features two topics: i) This behavior has - to the best of my knowledge - not been documented before; ii) This - IMO - is one of my most fancy contre-jour photos of wildlife as the scenario with those thousands of water droplets really reveals the dynamics of this moment. Judge yourself. I was courageous; now you be spirited ; -). -- AWeith (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 10:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support More Angry Birds! :) Have I understood this action shot correctly that fulmars are coming in from the left in the pic and the kittywakes are fleeing front and right? I like that the water spray creates a sort of backdrop (no pun intended) to the fight. cart-Talk 11:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  Info Yes, (almost) correctly observed (you are a very good observer!). The fulmars swam directly atop the shoal of fish and the kittywakes flew in the air above them. The Kittywakes kept diving down from a height and into the water. Then the fulmars all - in the image from the left and from the back - darted for the diving Kittywakes who - succesful or not - fled from the site towards us or to the right. The whole battle lasted at least for an hour and I shot more than two hundred photos of that scene. I deemed the contr-jour ones the most dramatic and exiting ones. Also: see my photo of a succesful Kittywake which unfortunately has a cut left wing. :( --AWeith (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! :) You could add some of this explanation to the description on the file's page. It will add to the value of the pic if viewers have a little help in understanding it and figuring out which bird is doing what. cart-Talk 13:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Neorthacris simulans-Kadavoor-2016-09-13-002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 09:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks AWeith. I had studied about them a lot. A twin or ring flash seems not suitable for the long focal length I use. This may good; but the lack of availability for such systems in India is a stopping block. (Anyway artificial lighting is a must as this is found in late evening under the plants.) Jee 10:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lmbuga (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2009K4393 - Почаїв (Тернопільський).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 08:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 34-36 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 07:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You're welcome. Thanks for taking it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 11:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Another lovely abstract Iranian ceiling (Not sure from the window above if it's tilted or it's the window, though ... seems to be the latter). Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question The sky is gray or brightness was artificially lowered? --The Photographer 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, The Photographer, that grey due was due to a too strong highlights reduction, I have moderated it. --Poco2 20:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, I will keep my suppor vote --The Photographer 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Got some questions on pic, see notes. Also think is very gray inside, and maybe right side could be enlightened a bit more if RAW is available. --Mile (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A windows. I think is much better then before. --Mile (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Mile: What does RAW stand for? never heard of that. :) Those openings are not showing directly the sky, I think that there was a kind of cover. I have brightened the right dome and reduce the highlight compensation --Poco2 20:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This improved the picture, but did it really look like this, or did it look more like what you had before? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan, I applied the change because I believe that it does look now more realistic than before, otherwise I wouldn't have applied it. In general this kind of changes should not be applied to make it look nicer but closer to reality. Poco2 07:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reassurance. I totally agree with that, but I think you can understand why I asked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 04:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Lyon city, 8 November 2009.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 06:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Clément Chéné (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. I'm a big fan of photographing buildings at an angle where the rising/setting sun is coming at an opposite angle (about 90 to 150 degrees from where you're standing). Sometimes it works beautifully, like File:Musee d'Orsay and Pont Royal, North-West view 140402 1.jpg, but here I think the buildings and especially the tree on the right are too dark relative to the sky/clouds to make it work. --King of ♠ 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many overexposed parts in the clouds and at the reflections on the cars and where is the "wow" effect? --Ermell (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per overexposure noted by Ermell and generally unexciting composition. I can see what you were thinking here but unfortunately it didn't come through the lens. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago September 2016-14.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 21:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thank you for the nomination, W.carter. I was not sure myself owing to the strong distortion. But I agree the view is striking! Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice mood. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Challenging photo to take, and I think the results are good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely done. Having some shadow is probably unavoidable at any time of day. --King of ♠ 01:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question No complains because of the dust spots and the noisy sky?--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I missed the dust spots, those few are now corrected, thanks for pointing them out. I hope Alvesgaspar don't mind. Unfortunately I wrote "left" in the Comments when it was "right". Is that correctable, or do I live with the shame of having mixed up left and right? As for the sky, I don't find it too noisy. It's a large file and denoising with such thin clouds can have strange effects. I think it is up to Alvesgaspar to make that decision. cart-Talk 09:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I make that mistake all the time - I'm one of those guys that often still has to feel my hands to remember which side is which, and that's not even fail-safe. And I do correct such mistakes in my comments when I catch them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good picture --Ermell (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this works! Icy in its beauty and juxtaposition of old and new. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment For sure an impressive motive and challenging shot. Nonetheless I would suggest some optimizations:
  • Slight CAs at the top right building (CA note), I would definitely denoise the sky, the foreground is too tightly cropped for my personal taste, have you got more space left there? Judging from the EXIFs of the photo is is a stitching, probably you can add information about the stitching with {{Photo}} and/or {{Panorma}} template. I have no problem with the distortion - inevitably for such an extreme view, but I am wondering why the top of the building is relatively unsharp although you've used stitching technique. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm 'pinging' Alvesgaspar on your behalf. Such decisions and answers needs to be from the photographer and not the nominator in this case. cart-Talk 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks,W.carter. My questions / suggestions were indeed directed to the photographer. Because Alvesgaspar already reacted to your nomination I was sure he has this page on the watchlist :) --Tuxyso (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 20:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 20:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support. This kind of mood is very characteristic of your photos. The composition is a little bit busy for my tastes, but only slightly. --King of ♠ 02:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reflection as well as the framing. --WPPilot (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the interplay of the diagonals. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:St. Michael ob Rauchenödt Flügelaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •   Info Winged altar in late gothic style at the filial church St. Michael ob Rauchenödt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master, around 1517. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose - I like the motif a lot, but I feel like more of this is in shadow or half light than optimal, and the figures on the top could be more focused. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect solution with that window behind the altar.--Ermell (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 09:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Skul of crocodile (Crocodylidae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info Specimen of crocodile skull prepared by the bone maceration technique and on display at the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy, FMVZ USP, created by Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP / Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Lucas.Belo - nominated by Joalpe -- Joalpe (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Joalpe (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Well lit, excellent details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --WPPilot (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Measured support Almost a little too bright in some areas, though. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Brockhampton Estate - gatehouse and manor house.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Weak   Oppose. A very nice scene, but our technical standards for photos taken in broad daylight with no mitigating circumstances have become better than this (a slightly unsharp 7.5 MP image). --King of ♠ 02:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. It's a beautiful, peaceful scene, but it should be sharper for FP, in my opinion. I'm also a little unsure about the way the top and right crops cut into trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and King. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit


  •   Info, @King of Hearts, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case:: here's another version with less cropping - more tree, more sky, and more pixels. DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support DeFacto DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Not just more pixels, but compositionally better. Even when comparing apples to apples, the white house on the far left is sharper. --King of ♠ 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support this version's much better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment CAs at the edges of the left house --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This version I can support, pending fixing of the CA. --cart-Talk 09:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost done, you missed two spots, see notes. Sorry for being picky. ;) cart-Talk 18:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I had another go at the green ones you noted - they were quite stubborn, but hopefully reduced sufficiently now. Thanks for persevering. :) DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Perseverance is the only way to excellence. ;) --cart-Talk 19:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Much improved. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - Yes, it's better, but for me, it's missing something for FP, which might be additional sharpness, a bit more light or something else. I won't and don't want to stand in the way of a consensus to feature, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Water lily on a lake.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 16:17:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Nymphaeales
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Bharel -- Bharel (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bharel (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pretty picture, but it needs much better categories such as what species of Nymphaeaceae and where the photo is taken, that should also be in the description. This should have been sorted out at QIC, but unfortunately too many reviewers miss that. A geocode would also be nice, please. --cart-Talk 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy for me, and the blurred background doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Daniel. The flower is very nice, though. Assuming the issues cart discussed above are taken care of, a tight rectangular crop just beyond the flower and to its right would be a photo that I could probably support, with the point being to get rid of most of the blur and most of the leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 08:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Cerkev sv. Marka, Vrba.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 14:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Smihael -- Miha (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment This one is in a rare late-autumn light. I also have a version without powerlines (from a slightly different perspective), but I thought maybe they are interesting part of the composition -- Miha (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, I guess they are not. I feel disturbed by them. Moreover, the scenery dosen't wow me. --AWeith (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ok, I will upload a different version. Probably it still won't have the wow effect for you as it is nothing you wouldn't have seen before , as both arhitecture and landscape of Baden-Württemberg are quite similar to Gorenjska/Krain, where the picture was taken, but it might be different for someone, coming from Mediterrans. --Miha (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark areas are too dark = too much contrast. --King of ♠ 02:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel a tighter crop on the church would work (it feels like it's getting lost amid all the scenery) but it's probably better to try again, as it seems rather soft on the church. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Jaz bi uporabil rano jutranjo uro za tole, zlate sončne tukaj ne pašejo. Rano, ko sonca še ni, ko je še rosa povsod, tisto bi bil kandidat. Takrat sonca niti ne rabiš oziroma bi celo motil posnetek. Cerkev daš na tretjino, in po višini, in po širini. Sredinske kompozicije se neposrečene. --Mile (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I actually like this composition a lot, and apparently more than anyone else who's voted on this nomination. The shadows really work to me as shapes. To me, this is a very good landscape composition, with the layers of the shadows, the lighted grass, the church and colorful trees, the mountains and the sky. The focus is a little soft on the upper reaches of the church, but I don't see this as a photo of a church but as a landscape including a church, and I don't think I agree with suggestions of a crop. The only real question in my mind is whether this photo is outstanding compared to all similar photos, and since I don't have the time to look through every potentially similar photo, I simply give this photo a mild support vote for its own artistic quality, as I see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Vineyard snail on a stem.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 13:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Gastropoda
  •   Info created by Bharel - uploaded by Bharel - nominated by Bharel -- Bharel (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bharel (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The white areas on the shell are blown and should be corrected. In addition, the subject is somewhat small... --AWeith (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Main subject is not only small, but imho also not sharp enough (f/4 was not the best choice). --Ivar (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)



  •   Info as the source image is in high technical quality, I allowed myself to crop it a little (while attempting to maintain the composition) and play with highlights and sharpness. Didn't want to retouch it too much in order not to hurt it. Bharel (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can understand the shell not being all in focus, but even where it is the edges are sort of soft and, more to the point, there is a visible dark halo around it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. We need crisp photos for this kind of subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:MOB GDe 4-4 6004 Gstaad - Gruben with Golden Pass Classic.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 13:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Catedral II.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 12:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Others
  •   Info created and uploaded by Jose Humberto Matias de Paula - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support wow, a great image! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better than the previous FPC from this cave. I love her Super Hero pose! :) What is that dark blue strange spot (see note)? Is it just shadows playing a trick on us or something else? --cart-Talk 15:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm not sure, maybe a shadow caused by the backlight. --Ivar (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the detail in this light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very fine detail. The color saturation is not too much to my taste, but it is not exactly disturbing. --AWeith (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm willing to excuse the technical deficiencies (the slightly out-of-focus stalactites and only 5.4 MP resolution) due to the huge wow factor. --King of ♠ 02:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressing!--Ermell (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - At this point, there isn't much incentive for anyone to pay any attention to my suggestion, but for what it's worth, I would cut some of the unsharp foreground from the top. I think that would improve the photo, but seeing as this is going to be a Featured Picture as is, I don't think anyone will do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien 2016 Antikensammlung römische Büsten a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 09:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tsui (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tsui (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support An interesting take on what could have been just another row of busts where it is hard to get everything sharp anyway. Could also be a nice vignette for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women; a sharp woman up front. ;) Wouldn't mind if that single visible spotlight was cloned out though. --cart-Talk 11:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Low DoF makes sense artistically to me in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Wish it wasn't so noisy, but it does convey the reflective nature of this scene. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If you find this reflective, you should love this one. ;) Pity that doesn't have the quality for a nom or I would have done that a long time ago. cart-Talk 21:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 90% out of focus does not work for me--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Wolfgang Moroder. lNeverCry 22:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but this composition doesn't work with me. Focused part is almost on the border and it's not crisp sharp (even slightly noisy). --Ivar (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Wolfgang Moroder. Interesting approach, but it does not work for me in this case. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I do find in rather interesting. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Bowsprit of the Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951) cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 09:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info All by -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, I have to agree with Daniel. The line with the cables to the bowsprit that continue in the boom of the sailboat is really nice, but it gets lost in the buildings behind it. There are also the flags that are very difficult to see where they belong, boat, other boat, building? Sorry. --cart-Talk 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. An interesting idea that is good but not completely successful in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:The underwater surface structures of an iceberg in Svalbard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 05:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fort Pierce Inlet Fort Pierce Florida photo D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 23:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It is probably some different kind of marine vegetation that thrives in that sheltered part of the inlet, or humus from the trees (mangroves??) next to it. cart-Talk 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poké95 12:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:North Laguna Aerial photo by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 22:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_States
  •   Info created uploaded & nominated by-- WPPilot (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WPPilot (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please correct the CA. --King of ♠ 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support This is one of those aerials that work; however I second King's point about the CA. It should be easy to do. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment As per request. --WPPilot (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    alt w CA adjustment for Camera & Lens profile (collapsed to avoid confusion)
    It seems there's no change in the amount of CA. If you don't mind, I've uploaded a corrected version over your original image. By the way, for uncontroversial changes, you typically upload over the original image instead of presenting the corrected version as an alt. Alts are usually for crops, significant exposure/color changes, etc. where someone might prefer the original. --King of ♠ 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great capture of the curves of the shoreline. --King of ♠ 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm not really seeing the difference between the original version and the corrected version. Where should I look for the difference? I think I've just gotten used to this photo, and what I see is that quite reasonably, the closer portions are more in focus and naturally, as the distance becomes greater, there is more blurring. I like the cliffs and I like the colors in the water. I'm guessing the dark color may be from kelp forests - is that right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info -- Ikan that is what you are seeing, yes. The water is unseasonably warm this year and, if you compare this to my photos of this area in years past you will see the color change, thanks to our friend El Nino. This makes the water clear and the kelp is growing fast as its now a big problem for us when we race, kelp on the keel is slow. --WPPilot (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Solvay conference 1927.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 21:40:56

  •   Info Although the second photo has lower nominal resolution, it is clearly sharper than the first when compared at the same size. The second photo also preserves the shadows better, which are lost in the first. Additionally, the first photo is cropped a bit too tight on the left. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- King of ♠ 21:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace lNeverCry 21:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Clearly improved. The only thing I am missing is embedded color-space metadata, but they were also not available in the original, and we have no clear guidance regarding color-space metadata for B&W photographs. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per nom and Slaunger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per everyone else. Improvement evident even in thumbnail view. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Though this is not exactly the same photo, it was taken a few seconds before or after (see position of some persons, e.g. Paul Dirac) Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Mile (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:30th Street Station Philadelphia July 2016 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 18:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts
  •   Info With the US presidential election coming up, here's something timely: 30th Street Station specially lit up during the DNC in Philadelphia. -- King of ♠ 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --WPPilot (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I enjoy the framing as well as the centering of the street. Nice night photo..
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I quite like this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per WPPilot. That crack in the street looks a bit ominous, like the beginning of some disaster movie! ;) --cart-Talk 20:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, although I think the bottom could be cropped in to reinforce the horizontality of the building. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too much foreground. A crop of the bottom would improve a lot, I guess. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)



  •   Info @WPPilot, INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, W.carter, XRay: @Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Uoaei1, ArionEstar: I have made a cropped version at the request of multiple users. King of ♠ 01:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I support either version. lNeverCry 01:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I too support either version. I noticed the building at first and IMHO think that it provides a unique balance of framing. --WPPilot (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Same here. They seem pretty much equally good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per comment above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This one is good too, but I would prefer the other one. --XRay talk 04:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support either one's fine - this one is better though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Prague September 2016-2a.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 13:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support lNeverCry 20:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Please fix the dust spots in the sky. Thanks, Alvesgaspar. It's very good to see you nominating photos here again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done And thanks for the welcome! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you! And   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support since I presume you will fix that spot Ikan mentions. cart-Talk 20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support May be WB could be a little bit warmer. --XRay talk 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago September 2016-4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 13:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose In my opinion, if there is going to be any perspective distortion, it must be very clear and striking (e.g. File:TransAmerica Pyramid.jpg), not "sort-of distorted" as it is here. I also disagree with the placement of the Tribune Tower in front of the Trump Tower, which makes the composition look flat. --King of ♠ 17:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I totally get the old vs new tower idea here. Such comparative photos are often tricky to execute, side by side is often better than superimposing. I think this would have worked better if the central lines of the towers, represented by their spires, had been aligned instead of the bulk of the buildings. A small difference in light could also have helped separate the towers from each other, like a darker new Trump Tower looming over the old traditional. And going for vertical lines, it is generally better to go all in and include all verticals in the pic, here the (also vertical) flag pole is unfortunately cropped leaving the flag to its own devices. cart-Talk 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - Alvesgaspar, would you consider straightening the buildings? I agree that it would have been nice for at least the whole flag to be visible, but I really like the old/new idea cart mentions, and I will support if the buildings are straightened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have given a try but it doesn't work. The camera was too close! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh well. I hope you have a chance to give this composition another shot, because I really like it. But as it is, I am   Neutral because of the slant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. It just seems off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like because you didnt go to "correct distortion" and you left it as it, which is in this case good. I would more like third-third-third compo (church-skycraper-air). And also agree with flag. Think people should know when to correct it and when not. King of mentioned good case where that is more clear, true, but in this kind of shot he cant go so close, since he have to capture one more building behind. --Mile (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination

File:Vitra factory loading docks 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 09:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Till Niermann - uploaded by Till Niermann - nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Till (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting shapes and composition, and an unorthodox subject. lNeverCry 09:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INC. I like this much better than the version that includes sky in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Till.niermann: sorry, but this image was not developoed by consider the freedom of panorama. This image was cleary made from the private property of the Vitra factory. Maybe you have a special permession by Vitra. If so please mail this to the support team and I'll remove my contra, otherwise we have to put a deletion request on this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment No, I don't have a special permission. As a matter of fact I didn't think I needed one, but I must admit I didn't do any research on this subject. There are about 250 files in Category:Vitra in Weil am Rhein, and as I see it, all of them will have to be deleted if there are legal issues. --Till (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
      • As I live near to Weil am Rhein I know the terrain rather well. Part of the terrain is public opened, not with a fence but nevertheless private property. Other parts are public ways, third parts are generally not public but accessible within the scope of guidance. As far as I know the factory loading docks are within fences and not generally opened to public. Here we have the problem that nearly all buildings of Vitra was made by well known architects and all buildings are unique and have threshold of originality. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I wrote to Vitra asking for permission. This is all I can do for now. --Till (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support In the meanwhile I'll just add my support for this pic and hope that the permit will sort things out. --cart-Talk 18:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support Per my comment on the previous nom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question I guess the real question re German FoP is, is the place from which the photo was taken accessible to the public? Or does it have to be public property, not just private property anyone can wander on to? (And if German warehouse parking lots are like their American counterparts, you could easily expected to be discouraged from walking onto them just to take pictures like this). Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    • No, the question is: for FoP is the fact decision making of it is privat property or not. This is not a question of accessibility. But this picture is for sure made from privat property that is not public accessible, it's one possible to get there by a guidance. The geo location of this object is (47.600345437049285/7.617194652557373). --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The DR will happen when it happens, for now let's judge the merits of the image. --King of ♠ 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support too I like the composition. Sharpness could be better, but this is no problem. Please add geo location. And I guess it isn't FoP, is it? Please add information about FoP. --XRay talk 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Concerning the question of FoP please see the discussion above. --Till (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Added geo location. --Till (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

File:View of Delft, by Johannes Vermeer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 23:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Johannes Vermeer - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Jan Arkesteijn -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Since it's a Vermeer, the only question we should concern ourselves with is: is it well-digitized? It's enough for me ... I really like that we can see the craquelure, and ponder the artist's brushing technique in his fine details (@Ikan Kekek: I'm interested in your thoughts on this). Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Well, what I'm seeing is that the apparent source file (go to this link and then click "View of Delft" and enlarge the image as far as it will go) is smaller but finer than this version. It looks to me like the image was enlarged here to focus more on the cracks in the paint, but what's sacrificed is the ease of seeing a view that's zoomed but still focuses more on the light and shade of the painting (not the lighting on the painting) and its overall composition. In other words, it's not that I want to argue, exactly, that this version is too detailed, but rather, that the degrees of zoom available in the original, including full size, show the painting to better advantage as an artwork. Now if we had one of those humongous Getty images, where many degrees of zoom were available and the lighting was perfect, that would be a different story. But do you all see how the glare in the cracks is highly visible at full size in this version, whereas the full sized version of the original still looks pretty smooth, even though the cracks are visible? This is a high-level criticism, but I'm tempted to vote against a feature for this, unless my deduction of what was done to edit the original can be effectively debunked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to   Oppose, partly per my comments above and partly so that a tenth vote doesn't automatically stop discussion. Perhaps no-one will agree with my points, and if so, so be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support What i met at pictures is; you will never see same colors of same image. Go to Google, check images, and suddenly there will be in many color options - white balance problem. Some museums have doors, windowds. A guest from 12h will have diffferent color than guest from 15h - even with same camera and camera setting. Also preservation is here. When done, picture before and picture after have some difference. Or you might try to put white-balance cards, white-gray-black, and then to set it in program, to get some "serious" colors. Vermeer is fine anyway. --Mile (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportPugilist (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Підгорянський монастир.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 20:27:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by SvartKat - uploaded by SvartKat - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a nice dramatic pic but a little too centered. It would have been better to turn the camera a bit to the left to get more of the graveyard and the church plus ruin less centered. There is also some processing done by some software (external or in-camera), especially in the sky making the clouds look like whipped cream with halos floating on a oversaturated blue sky. Maybe a reversal of this and a crop could save it... --cart-Talk 23:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit dark but very nice lighting and composition. --King of ♠ 00:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For me the clouds break up the staticness the centered building with otherwise create. Not perfect but close enough. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the spectacular view; processing isn't perfect but good enough for me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Frank and KoH. I love the fact that the most prominent buildings are in the center of the photo and, as usual, I disagree with the notion that that's bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think 'centered' is bad just because it's centered, it's just that here I would have liked to see a bit more of the graveyard to the left (with the autumn trees) and less of the shadowy hill to right. cart-Talk 07:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Well balanced compo and exposure--Ermell (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - pre Ermell, Well balanced, really nice work. --WPPilot (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per all supporters. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Temple aux six colonnes 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 13:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  weak per Cart below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose See below. Composition-wise this is the best you have shown us so far and I like it. The light and colors are also good. You are learning. :) Unfortunately it is very heavily processed, making it appear almost painted. I suspect you used the 'smart blur' or some similar function. You could try another version with just a little noise reduction. We all know that most night pics are a bit grainy so that would not necessarily be a problem. If that, plus a much better description of the photo, was fixed, I could consider changing to 'Support'. cart-Talk 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Martin Falbisoner really I admit that I used only the noise reduction and that becuase there is no loss of details with that but I reduced it now have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear cart-Talk really I admit that I used only the noise reduction and that because there is no loss of details with that but I reduced it now have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The description is good now and the pic is starting to look real so I'll actually give you my weak support. I would be even happier if you brought it back from that processing even a little, little bit more so that the temple looks just as real as the stones in front of it. :) cart-Talk 23:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for quality reasons. I'm willing to accept lower quality on night photography than usual if it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. Here, you could have gone up to 15 seconds without star trails, which would allow you to reduce the aperture or ISO by some combination of four stops. --King of ♠ 00:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It is like I am watching a flim. -- Poké95 03:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition and colours a lot; in this case, for me that overrides the technical shortcomings -- Thennicke (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is a terrific composition, and I love the untraily stars. If you reduce the noise sufficiently, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan, the first version of this pic was denoised and it made the sky look nice but unfortunately it made the temple look unnatural. Take a look. The noise of the sky is normal/acceptable now for a night shot (example). cart-Talk 07:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks for filling me in on the history. I disagree with you and prefer the denoised version, even though it does look a bit artificial. I'd like to think there could be a more convincing way to denoise, though. Perhaps something toward the previous version but not all the way there? I don't consider this much noise to be OK in a Featured Picture, even one taken at night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Ikan Kekek and dear cart-Talk and dear King of and dear Daniel Case and dear Martin Falbisoner I added in QI right now the first picture taken in the site lot of detail and a realistic scene but there was not lot of stars so i chnged the place and the setting to have this one ... really I appreciate the conversation here and I wish that both of the photos please all the friends here ... If you accept let me revert the unrealistic one here and if the other one take the label QI I will nominate It too ... thank you again --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, I think you should leave this as it is. The mood, light, colors and crop is better in this pic and people seem to like it, so why complicate things. :) --cart-Talk 13:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • IssamBarhoumi, I agree with cart that you shouldn't edit the photo now, because as it stands, it is currently on track for a feature. Gaining my support and losing current supporters wouldn't be a good tradeoff. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 10:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Fuel gauge (Toyota Corolla).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 08:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
  •   Info CA correction done. There is a reflextion from plastic cover, which one might think its huge CA. All by me. --Mile (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, I'm not feeling this one. I'd probably like the photo better if you showed the entire circle of the fuel gauge. Right now, it feels cut off, with empty space doing nothing for me on the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek It not full circle, at left in a cm begins clock speed. Right side, black, makes with left white side nice combination. There is no other interesting option, just puting white option isnt so interesting to me. --Mile (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Noted. I'm not wowed by this picture, but we'll see whether enough other people are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb artistic composition and excellent quality. Had it been a full view of the round meter, it would have been just another good pic of an instrument panel. This makes it an out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye angle as if you were anxiously glancing at the meter while being chased by bad guys in a car movie. cart-Talk 10:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • cart i have full cockpit also, but i wanted to make this for some time, just gasoline gauge. But i found this much more interesting. Good words, they did like it on Flickr also. --Mile (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't say for sure why this doesn't work for me. Maybe the shapes aren't simple enough. Maybe it's just too ordinary. Maybe it needs to have been a more colorful gauge. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Daniel, think "Tron". ;) --cart-Talk 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I did like that glowy look, but it wasn't dramatic enough, I guess. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Excellent quality, but I don't have enough wow on this. Maybe good for QI instead? -- Poké95 02:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the simplicity of this shot; the off-centered composition works for me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - A little small, but it should not be an issue considering the simplicity of the composition. I like the simplicity and the crop. --Pugilist (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Захід сонця на вершині скелі Соколине око.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 13:13:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is. An awesome scene (not oversaturated) but it actullay needs some perspective adjustment since all the trees are leaning out from the center plus the blown out and posterized clouds are a bother. Please nominate for QI first to get such errors corrected before nominating it here. cart-Talk 17:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Acceptable as it is, especially without visible building. I tend to disagree with my colleague above for the perspective corrections that will likely lead to an unacceptable crop IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks a bit over-processed to my eyes. The light is good but there's a weak centre of the composition that doesn't really work. The left tree would be a good subject, and the right half would be a good subject. Also 6MP from a 36MP camera is heavily downsized (40% size) yet not biting sharp one might expect, suggesting the full size image is soft. Please Ryzhkov Sergey can you upload fullsized (or at least much less downsized) images. -- 21:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is beautiful and vivid, and I quite like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose over-saturated and per other opposes.--Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Hockei (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now as I am having problems viewing the file in full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO Wow there is! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Yixian Hongcun 2016.09.09 18-21-34.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 11:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#China
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Zhangzhugang -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is too much noise. I could only consider it when the noise is dramatically reduced. --AWeith (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with AWeith that there is not much to say about the pic until the noise is gone. cart-Talk 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regardless of the noise, the left part is just too unsharp for FP, I'm afraid. --King of ♠ 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per AWeith and the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File: Dublin Stephen's Green-44.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 00:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is NOT the case Daniel, (no pun intended) many drones now carry DSLR's. Fact is this shot was done with a Phantom, those have small chips (same size as a go pro) yet the Inspire 1 Drone I fly for Television Production runs a fantastic Micro 4/3rds camera that DJI refers to as a X5 and its Large Platform Drone, carries DSLR cameras. The dif is cost, you can Phantom for under a thousand yet my production Inspire Pro rig is well over 10k, it goes up only when I am getting paid :). Is that going to be the standard of entry for Aerial Photos on commons "if you don't have the 10k to play, go away" seems a bit over the top to me..... --WPPilot (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, there are certain quality issues... but: this is one of the best pictures taken using a drone that I've seen so far. So don't pixelpeep, simply enjoy the view! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin. Very cool and interesting. Think of this as the drone equivalent of a 2000 FP taken with a Nikon D1X (I know Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek remember that 5 megapixel, 5,000$ dinosaur...  ). lNeverCry 08:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It looks quite sharp to me and is 12MP. If downsized to 6MP it is fully sharp except right in the corners, and 6MP is fine for printing in a magazine spread, for example. The colourful green is well framed by the buildings and this is has very high EV. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is. Great idea and maybe we have to set another standard for drone photos, but normal post-processing can still be applied to these photos, such as denoising and removing CA. There is red/green CA or purple fringes on almost every white area along the edges. cart-Talk 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose chromatic aberration --The Photographer 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Widely in our finest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We can accept lower technical quality for drone photography just as we already do for underwater photography. --King of ♠ 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yes, we could choose to do so, but why? Aerial photography from helicopters already exists as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I do believe it will not be long until drones can carry DSLR cameras and/or same will be designed to be usable on drones. We can wait ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think if the uploader had given us the 6MP version and told you it was taken by a DSLR, nobody would be surprised. At 6MP the CA at the top and left edge is minor. Compare this current FPC candidate which is a soft 6MP image taken with a 36MP D800, and doing well at FPC -- because we punish those who upload full sized image and fall for those who downsize to 40% to escape pixel criticism! Wrt aerial photography, I'd be interested in User:WPPilot's professional views. Compare this failed nomination. Having a DSLR is absolutely no guarantee against the critics and pixel peeping at FPC :-) You need luck with the light, weather, foliage/season, stability and careful framing of a subject like this. Can anyone point to a better aerial photo of a city garden square, anywhere, never mind just on Commons? My guess is this sort of imagery is technically challenging, with a low success rate, and that none of us reviewers really know from personal experience what quality to expect. Most images I found online were thumbnails, whereas this is 12MP -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the pic per se, but I expect the same basic CA removal and noise reduction when possible as we do of any FPC. If these very fixable issues are fixed, I will happily change my vote to 'Support'. Hence the "as it is". cart-Talk 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dronepicr its seems very unsharp, like lens was dirty or something. Actually this image quality isnt so high even for drone, but compo and idea is good. I am sure its more Valuable photo. --Mile (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We don't have many drone photos (tell me if I'm wrong), and this is one of the greatest drone photos I've seen. -- Poké95 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)--Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --WPPilot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with Pokéfan95, as the single largest contributor of aerial photos to this site, I think this is a wonderful and well framed shot. Many of you are IMHO being too critical... What is the barrier to entry here? According to ECIF on this shot it was done with the DJI FC300X, (Phantom 3 pro) that is a 1500 dollar investment when you fly (I have one myself) and one would think that this SHOULD be able to establish a aerial photo FP, using the DJI Phantom pro as its chipset is the same size as a "Go Pro" and we have a number of FP's that were created using the Go Pro camera... Another thing to consider BTW is the cost of Insurance too. A phantom is about 600 a year, while a pro level drone running a DSLR is about 3500, a year and that is my rate as a 30 year multi engine licensed pilot with no accident history......
  •   Comment - The test here is whether a candidate photo is one of the very best on the site. That calls for having very high standards, or if you like, being very critical. And I don't see what the cost of insurance has to do with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   CommentIt is about "Cost of Entry" originally the FP designation was designed to allow people with a simple Cel Phone to be able to take a have a photo that was worthy of FP, it would seem that is no longer the case. It was mentioned above that Aerial Drone "do not" fly DSLR's. Almost ALL of my aerial photos were done from my planes, while flying them @ 100 to 300mph give or take. The critical assessments you previously offered was that we can do better, my retort is who is going to pay? I have suggested a Drone "Group" to help this process move along but, just as Colin said above this is a wonderful photo and we are going to have to give some leeway, or simply exclude drone photos unless the photographer has the 10 to 20 thousand dollars required to meet your overly high standards such as my production rig that ONLY flies, when I am being paid to fly it as the risk of loss it too great that is why I have the other drones.. Do you have a example of a GOOD aerial photo that YOU have taken so the rest of us can see what it is you think is FP quality, and please do tell what the system was that you used to take it with. A DJI Phantom line should be able to do this, its chipset is the same on on Go Pro's, my concern is that we "price" just about every contributor out of this field due to the quality standards that you are implying. Featured Picture is about more then just the technical quality, educational value as well as difficulty should be considered and weighed in upon before a conclusion is made simply based upon a technical imperfection. Thanks.....--WPPilot (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't submit my own photos to FPC because they're nowhere remotely close to featurable. If anyone would like to argue that means I should refrain from participating here, I'd have no problem with having that argument somewhere else, such as on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates, where we could discuss revisions in the qualifications of FPC voters and anything else related to that. We have featured a couple of cellphone pics. Those were cases in which enough of us considered the composition to be great enough and the quality good enough, despite inevitable limitations. But I think I remember from previous discussions that cellphone pics generally, as of yet, aren't considered by a consensus at FPC to be of good enough quality to be featured, and I believe the couple that passed were regarded by all "support" voters as exceptions that prove the rule (whereas the opposers still didn't consider the photos technically good enough). I definitely agree with you that technical quality is not the only consideration at FPC. Composition is a very strong consideration, and educational/encyclopedic/historical (etc.) value also can figure in voting decisions. It's understandable that different people rate these criteria as more or less important, in context. The upshot in this particular case is that I definitely understand your point of view and respect it, but while I don't exclude supporting drone pics at all and would look forward to doing so, I don't feel the novelty of the technology overrides my desire for more focus. If the result of attitudes like mine is that drone pictures currently can't be featured, I agree that that's regrettable, and I would be willing to allow some leeway in quality, but not this much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --SI 16:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support High educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is not FP quality. It might take some time until drone photography reaches an acceptable standard. I agree relating the educational value.--Ermell (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)



  •   Info @Dronepicr, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, INeverCry: @Colin, W.carter, The Photographer, Christian Ferrer, Iifar: @PetarM, Pokéfan95, Uoaei1, Alchemist-hp, WPPilot: @Schmarrnintelligenz, Lošmi, Frank Schulenburg, Ermell: I made an effort to correct the CA and add just a hair more sharpening. -- King of ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It isn't even that unsharp, in my opinion. We have one standard for easily photographed subjects like skylines, buildings with lots of breathing room, and landscape panoramas, and a lower standard which is merely "normal" here at FPC and encompasses everything from birds to regular buildings to difficult landscapes, and finally a case-by-case standard for historical images and low-light action. I think the sharpness of this image compares favorably with some of the lower-quality images that have been promoted in the second category. --King of ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Both are great, anyway. -- Poké95 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support better ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I appreciate your work here, but this photo is still not sharp enough for me. Of the arguments you're making, the only one that's somewhat persuasive to me is the one about historical photos. The way the analogy could be made is that 100 years ago, it wasn't possible to get the degree of clarity and detail that can be attained with very good digital equipment today, and similarly, the argument would go, it's not now possible to get really crisp digital images from a drone (or at least not possible without spending tens of thousands of dollars). However, in the case of historical photography, there was no alternative at the time for any photography, whereas now, drone photography is only one particular type of photography. This is a very good composition, but are we voting on this (a) as a photograph or (b) as a representative of drone photography? Or are we voting on this (c) as a photograph and giving a big handicap to our judging because it's a drone photograph, but without considering this specifically as an exemplar of drone photography (in the nature of a Valued Image nomination)? I'm not clear on that, but I think I've laid out three different possible standards. And I think my standard would be to vote on this as a photograph and give somewhat of a handicap to it - but not a huge one - because it's a drone photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ikan, I could list the many less sharp and smaller resolution photos you have happily supported. Take this one where many others noticed her face was completely unsharp and the nominator explains the difficulty in capturing a moving dancer. Or this one where (i assume very strong NR) has created a smooth image but with no sharpness on the ice -- who cares. One doesn't have to go to the extreme of historical photos to justify unsharp images at 100%. Plenty situations compromise photography: having to use high ISO greatly reduces sharpness, moving subjects, moving cameras (think aeroplane), atmospheric conditions. Extreme wide-angle lenses and projections will have soft corners and that's just the laws of optics. We are spoiled by the sharpness of some of our downsized megapixel stitched churches or from images produced by $3000 cameras with $1000 prime lenses on them. We are also familiar with TV and web images of landscapes and sports that are actually tiny 2MP or thumbnail images and we forget that they probably look crap at 12MP never mind 36MP. Most of the images posted on popular photography sites barely fill an HD monitor (so < 2MP) yet we look at them and think they are wonderfully sharp. The standard at FP isn't that demanding and hasn't been in general. Unlike QI, FP balances wow with technical perfection. We are supposed to rise above the pixel peeping when presented with a great image. This image currently represents state-of-the-art low-height aerial photography -- I cannot find a better or sharper one anywhere. We've never judged FP by what might come in future. Unlike our churches and plants and bugs, we don't have lots of photographers doing this, and if we expect the sharpness of a Diliff interior then we won't have any such photographers participating here because they'll laugh. We are voting on whether this is among our finest images. Look at the image, not the pixels. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
For comparison, no one objected to the sharpness when I nominated this photo for FP, the critique was all about the artistic side. The houses and cars around the church are of about the same quality as this photo. I think the distance may be about the same as well. cart-Talk 11:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Both of you make good points. I'm liking but not loving this photo, but I'll abstain, at least for now, and think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Cart, you'll need to strike "Phantom 3 Drone" from your letter to Santa this year :-(. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Colin, Rats... But I guess this will be the same as with fireworks here, you have to apply for a permit (and pay for it) for those by law but everyone ignores that and fire them anyway. No-one is ever fined or convicted since the police gave up on that long ago. cart-Talk 12:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Drone become weapon, true weapon. Saw it in action. Lets say if this drone would lost control, at this high this would kill anyone bellow. Here you need permit also. See drone accidents on youtube. We wont see long this kind of shots. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Either one is fine with me, but this is an improvement. lNeverCry 09:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INC --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support of course. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks King of Hearts for taking the time to fix this up. There is still some CA left, but this is acceptable. The quality is about the same as you get in horizontal pics, made by a reasonably priced camera, at this distance. cart-Talk 11:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support CA is almost gone, and yes We can't apply the same standard for all the cameras. Could be nice apply a different standard based on Camera model. --The Photographer 12:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support i created a new version, reduced noise and modify sharpness: File:Dublin aerial unedited new version.jpg -- dronepicr (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • dronepicr, I compared your new version with the other two. The colour temperature is slighly different (5,211 vs 5,628) and you have increased the noise reduction and applied a mask to the sharpening. The CA is eliminated (whereas the alt by King of Hearts is only reduced). The noise, particularly on the lake and roads is eliminated, though possibly you didn't need to apply quite as much, in order to retain as much detail as possible. You could try using the brush and some negative noise reduction on the trees and grass to exclude them from the NR and restore some (apparent) detail there. The differences (apart from colour temp) are only visible at 100% and it looks like this alt will pass, so I'm not sure it is worth fiddling more with the image and creating another alt nomination. I think your edit does demonstrate why it is best to fix issues with the raw/source file and by the image creator in preference -- the CA is better removed and adding a sharpening mask is something you can only do on the unsharpened original, not on the already sharpened JPG. -- Colin (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I hesitate to support a photo of such reduced quality merely by the fact that the camera position is so unusual. My apology to the photographer; however, the only thing that impresses me here is the stunning scenario. I see lots of CA around the white structures, the treetops are partly blurred and the figures on the pavements (maybe not only them) are unsharp or blurred. I admit its fun to walk the streets around this park but at least I get dizzy from the unsharpness. Sorry again. --AWeith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, the unsharpness of the trees is what bugs me most about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Colin I edited noise and sharpness in the original raw file, NOT in jpeg. I Think it is slightly better than before. I'm wondering why there is so much negative feedback for this photo. The photo was taken with a small drone sensor, not with a dslr. In my opinion, a good photos is not always a perfect sharpened one. -- dronepicr (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • dronepicr I know you edited the raw in this copy but that one hasn't been proposed as an alt (and I think it is too late now to do so -- perhaps another nom if you feel strongly your edit is better). So it is confusing when you talk of "it is slighty better" or "this photo" as I'm not clear which of the three copies you refer to. I think your new version has too much NR -- just like one can over-sharpen one can also over-NR and we don't need to see smooth-as-plastic roads or water. There is of course a bigger debate on how much a 12+MP image needs to be sharpened given that its main use on WP is as a thumbnail (which is sharpened after downsizing automatically by MediaWiki) or could be sharpened by another re-user at the dimentions they wish to use. But most people do aim for a pleasing image on-screen at 12MP. Once everyone has high-DPI displays, some of this pixel-peeping will simply vanish. I think some of the negative comments about being "unsharp" aren't referring to post-processing sharpness, but in the clarity of detail captured by the lens/sensor. We would all love more detail, but I understand the limitations of the technology. As WPPilot explained, expecting a DSLR drone standard at FP is so fantastically expensive and risky to buy/insure/licence that it would be like expecting Hassleblad or cinema-grade photographic equipment as the base standard for FP. It's not going to happen. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:FDR Four Freedoms Park New York October 2016 panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 00:46:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural (not actually natural, but I don't know where else to put this)
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 00:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very nice photo, but when I really consider whether it's among the absolutely most outstanding, I have to admit it falls short. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan, sorry. Nice but not nice enough for FP. --Code (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No "Places/Natural" (but this is your problem and a wikimedia problem IMO). Good quality, but not FP IMO. Nothing special IMO, sorry--Lmbuga (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    It needs perspective correction. See right and left vertical lines (see notes) --Lmbuga (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Lmbuga: Note that the buildings are straight, and the barrier is actually slightly curved; I would trust the buildings more than the verticals on the barrier. Unfortunately, FP classifies places as either "Architecture" or "Natural," and this sure isn't architecture! I was so desperate for a place to put this