Open main menu

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, 2017, 2018 and current month.

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

Formal thingsEdit


Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Video and audioEdit

Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominationsEdit

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

You may use the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

Text to useDisplays asMeaning
{{Keep}}Symbol keep vote.svg KeepIt 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 useDisplays asMeaning
{{Keep}}Symbol keep vote.svg KeepDo not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}}Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

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

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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Above all, be politeEdit

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

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

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

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

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


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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Giant anteater at MAV-USP.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 19:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 12:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wells Cathedral Nave Photograph.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 06:58:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

MAV CanidaeEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2019 at 06:33:09 (UTC)

  •   Info Bases on previous discussion, I gather all Canidae skeletons displayed at MAV - edited by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - uploaded by Joalpe and Sturm - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - There are certainly differences in the way these skeletons are photographed. For example, some are yellower or darker than others. But overall, this is a notable achievement, even if a little eerie. Also, it's fitting but in a way odd that one of the skeletons is of a mutt, because there are so many different mixtures possible in a mutt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see how this is different to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/MAV I. Canidae is a huge family of creatures. As others have noted, I wouldn't expect a collection of Lez's shells to be nominated as a set, or a collection of Jee's butterflies to be nominated as a set. The final one (Saint Bernard dog) is poor quality. As the FP page says: "Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats". Here we have a few species/breeds of canids: there are 34 species, and hundreds of breeds of dogs. The fact that this may be the entire collection currently at MAV isn't IMO enough to make this a set, it just tells me that their collection is rather limited. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Basile is right below about the blown highlights. Yann (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly good VI candidates, but this one is relatively small and the head is unsharp, this one has blown highlights. I don't think each of them would be promoted if they were nominated separately, thus I don't see why they should be as a set -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sturm (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Joalpe como sempre com as melhores contribuições fotográficas. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Haft-sin, Nowruz, Still-life-3205068.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2019 at 21:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Katzenfee50, uploaded by 4nn1l2/Yann, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support good Ezarateesteban 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The background looks like my eyes are crossed and I'm seeing double. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the idea and it is arranged quite nicely, but: Formally, 1) the description really could use a bit more information – at least the single elements of the haft sin should be listed, as is seems that they can vary 2) The book cover is a copyright violation – {{de minimis}} may apply but the file is not marked as such. Photographically speaking, it's not really outstanding imho: busy background; weird light that is neither neutral nor does it add anything in terms of atmosphere; table is awkwardly cut. --El Grafo (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Rosie the Riveter (Vultee) DS.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2019 at 20:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

-- Colin (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You can read the various arguments at en:wp but they are a bit dated (2008) with concerns about large file size (not sure why since WP only displays a thumb). Since Commons is a media repository, and any of the other edits can be derived from the original, and there isn't really anything wrong with the original other than being huge and a little soft if you pixel-peep, I think we should support the original version. Yann, could you offer that as an alt? -- Colin (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)




Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 22:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

fixed tilted, thanks!!! @Uoaei1: Ezarateesteban 16:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Now it is leaning even more --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the picture might need cropping a little on the right hand side. Look in the bottom right corner - there are a few white pixels. Cmao20 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
See now @Cmao20: --Ezarateesteban 23:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The motif looks quite ordinary. I´m not sure, whether there is enough wow if it becomes technically perfect.--Milseburg (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  SupportMarinna (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Neither the light nor the composition are very successful in my view. Beside, there's a problem at the top right of the image with an intrusive white line, suggesting a bad crop after perspective correction -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 21:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Technical shortcomings undermine an otherwise good photo. I am a little less forgiving of quality issues on a shot like this than on some of your recent macro photography of butterflies and insects since a shot of a stationary subject is considerably easier to execute. Cmao20 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • OK.   I withdraw my nomination.--Hockei (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:MosMetro KomsomolskayaKL img2 asv2018-01.jpg (delist and replace)Edit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 15:43:54 (UTC)


  •   Info Komsomolskaya-KL station of Moscow Metro, all by A.Savin. Here is the original nomination. Now, after some consideration, I have reworked the second picture a bit to give more pleasant levels etc. Although there are no trains, I find this one better, also given the more generous crop on the ceiling. This crop is not possible on the first image. I also think, maybe, it is even better without trains, as they obscure some detail on the wall and they itself are not that nice. So, all in all I think the photo w/o trains should be featured and the photo with trains should then be delisted, because it's very similar.
  •   Delist and replace --A.Savin 15:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace - I prefer the proposed replacement because it's brighter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Cart (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Nürnberg Kaiserburg obere Kapelle 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 10:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
  •   Info Interior of the upper chapel of the Imperial Castle, Nuremberg, Middle Franconia, Bavaria, Germany. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The photo is not completely balanced for me. The pillar on the right is cut off at the top. The crucifix in the middle is also somewhat unhappy with regard to the window. The light on the right is also a bit disturbing for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Overall a good quality interior, even considering the above criticisms. Cmao20 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The pillar on the left is not vertical. At the bottom, there's a disturbing dark part (not horizontal). Shame also the view is asymmetrical. The right pillar is cut -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing so special for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Sunset over the hills of Amber Cove, 30 December 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 09:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Joe deSousa (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a great view with lots of details, but unfortunately it is so heavily over-processed that the highlights in the darker areas look like impressionistic brush strokes even if it is viewed at downsized like 50%. Being a Flickr photo I don't think we will be able to make the author fix this from raw. Pity. --Cart (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I also count at least 4 dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above. A shame because it makes a beautiful desktop wallpaper. Cmao20 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 018-033 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 18:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Full panoramic (360 degrees) view of the unique landscape around Deadvlei, Namib-Naukluft Park, Namibia. All by me, Poco2 18:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support You liked (and promoted) the last pano from the area, this one is IMHO even more impressive, much bigger and of higher quality. -- Poco2 18:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The previous one had an excellent composition, sadly not all 360 degrees panoramas share that quality no matter how big they are. IMO a normal jpeg is often an inferior medium for this kind of panorama since the composition tends to look a bit random. See note. --Cart (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Interesting photo to see the difference of ground in front of / behind the dune. But the composition is completely unbalanced. Two areas cut in the center and the dunes on the sides it does not work for me.
  •   Support I do get what people mean about this not being the most balanced or aesthetic composition, but the immense resolution and detail make this an impressive technical feat and an important and useful document. Cmao20 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Restaurant on Ochrid lake Pogradec Albania 2018.2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 17:26:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Karelj (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but focus to main part of the photo is not well done --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distortion, poor light and not very high resolution.--Peulle (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition is good, but vignetting and other technical flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, but the overexposed sky alone is a dealbreaker. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Weather observations in Antarctica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 17:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Tsy1980 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The place where this photo was taken is wow, but the main person is looking down (and that is not really impressive) --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - She's looking down to get her footing in the snow, I think. I like the form, the interesting apparatus and the stark snowscape with an incline in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural way of walking which indicates discomfort of receiving a photo --Wilfredor (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I particularly like the way she walks minding her steps so she doesn't stumble in this unnatural environment for humans.--G Furtado (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the most recent image, but still impressive --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do like the Hoth-ish atmosphere in this, but the composition just isn't awesome. To have someone centered in that vast emptiness looks unbalanced to me, a more panoramic view with more space left or right would have been nice. --Cart (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Simple but effective composition. Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michiel and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Place de l'Horloge in Nimes 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 15:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Could be a good VI, but I'm not awestruck by the composition, and I'd prefer a more nearly dead-on view of the tower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colours, and composition seems OK. We’ve certainly promoted much worse night photography. Cmao20 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Those colorful lights (green at the left, blue in the center) are too disco for me. Also the composition doesn't work in my view, with this intrusive wall on the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Couple of teenagers riding a jestski splashing on the Mekong in Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2019 at 10:38:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I think you are right, this compo is better. The other one also has a disturbing log in the background. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support For once a picture of Basile's from the rivers of Laos that doesn't involve bamboo bridges or tropical landscapes  . Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Langkofel group from Sellajoch Col Rodella Fassa.jpgEdit

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

File:Ida Paul & Kalle Lindroth - Ilosaarirock 2018 - 08.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 21:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Teevee - uploaded by User:Teevee - nominated by Teevee -- Teevee (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Teevee (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice portrait, good composition. --Yann (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 07:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 12:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not sure about the title though since Kalle Lindroth is not in the picture. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but misleading filename should be changed --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Crop on both sides is too tight. Also the guitar below shouldn't be cut. --Hockei (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is another one with the whole guitar and a bit more air on the right. I feel the focus a bit too far in the back in this one. --Teevee (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Smial (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Some small faults but given how hard it is to get this kind of shot right and how much does go right with it, I'm letting them go. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Galerie Perrotin Ceiling Detail.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 20:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created and uploaded by ComedyAmy - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like these kind of image very much. But IMO it is important, that the image is centered and the horizontal lines are horizontal. It's fixable. There are artifacts and problems mit sharpness too. May be this is not fixable. --XRay talk 07:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per XRay. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Vihorlat (v zime) 046.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 19:56:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info It can be fixed to make it look better. But I don't know if that low cloud was actually in the plane. I had a problem with it on several photos of that day. --Milan Bališin (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose until the tilt is fixed. Yann (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There is still a tilt IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question I don't know, it seems so straight to me? --Milan Bališin (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. If the horizon is tilted, I'm sure you'll fix it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Needs a lot of brightening, snow should be white. -- King of ♠ 01:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Why should it be white when it's reflecting what looks like late afternoon light near sundown? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It was taken about an hour before sunset. The sun colored the snow into “yellow”. The sunset was around 15:30. The photo was taken at 14:37 (It was Golden hour). --Milan Bališin (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll have to   Oppose the image in its current state then. -- King of ♠ 00:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment More photos of the day in The Gallery. On several photos, the snow is yellow (when the sun sets). --Milan Bališin (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, but a bit per Yann and a bit per King (It was my first impression too. Maybe it's slightly too warm.). --Hockei (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think that the lighting and above all the scenery had lots of FP potential, but I am not quite convinced about the composition here. I'd would probably focused more on a spot where the effect of the wind to the snow/ice is predominant --Poco2 12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Slightly colder WB. would probably be nicer.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Did you sleep up there? --Podzemnik (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image is overcategorized. --A.Savin 13:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For example "Vihorlat + Views from Vihorlat", "Frost + White frost", "Golden hour + Golden hour landscapes",... and many more --A.Savin 17:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have the impression that you are not thinking for yourself... --A.Savin 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Help me if there's something else wrong. Thanks. --Milan Bališin (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - He's right. Just to give a few examples: How can you have categories for both Vihorlat and Vihorlat (národná prírodná rezervácia)? It's obvious that one is a parent of the other, isn't it? At the very least, it's redundant. Also, you have numerous snow categories and then "Snow scenery", an obvious parent category. And isn't "Winter landscapes" a parent for one of the other categories? I want you to clean this up before it's featured, and I may have to join A.Savin in opposing if you don't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done I cleared it. I don't know if that's ok. --Milan Bališin (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better, but how is Kyjov (vrch vo Vihorlatských vrchoch) different from Vihorlat? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment They are two separate peaks. See notes in the photo. --Milan Bališin (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Got it. I think your categories are good now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nothing special. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice montane winter mood. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Hmla, vrcholky vysokotatranských štítov vyčnievajúce z rannej hmly 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 19:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint-Michel church in Fontenoy (DSCF5104) Antoing, Belgium.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 18:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Belgium
  •   Info by User:Trougnouf
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special. The tree obstructs the church. Yann (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. A QI and possibly a VI, but not a great composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This one is OK for me. If the sky was bright and blue I have a feeling it would have got a lot more support. But a grey sky doesn’t bother me, and the composition looks good - it’s often tough to find a better angle to shoot churches from I think. Cmao20 (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you. I really like the light in this picture, with the beginning of civil twilight even though the sky is cloudy there is a blue tint to it and it lights up the church beautifully imo. I think the tree is a feature, I like the way it stands next to this modest church and being the right time of the year it doesn't block the view (in contrast with the other version where I unexpectedly happened to bicycle to the same spot again five months later and the tree is too prominent). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Münster, St.-Paulus-Dom, nördliches Seitenschiff -- 2019 -- 3934-8.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 18:34:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Amiral bruix.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 16:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vue panoramique du château et de l'arsenal en Penfeld 3Fi079-242.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 10:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Merci beaucoup pour cette réponse detaillée. Je n'aurais pas pensé qu'un carte si grand serait possible. C'est tres interessant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite an interesting postcard Cmao20 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good scan of an unusual old item/memorabilia/postcard. Info added to description on file page. (À propos, même si {{LangSwitch}} est élégant, il peut cacher des informations qui ne sont disponibles que dans une des langues des autres lecteurs. Je l'ai changé en description multilingue.) --Cart (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart and Cmao20. This photo should also be nominated at VIC, regardless of whether it passes FPC or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support avec le supplément d'information. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't work so well for me.--Peulle (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting historically to see such a colored card -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Soutiens per les autres. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Walters Ranch Hop Kiln in 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2019 at 02:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


  •   Comment Thanks for the feedback. Here's a new, less cluttered version with stronger perpective correction. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It needs some perspective correction, otherwise looking good --Poco2 12:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Poco, which direction? I'm somewhat lost. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
No, no tilt here, just missing vertical perspective correction to get the verticals vertical (see verticals on the right side leaning in) --Poco2 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Uploaded a new version. Please note that the building itself isn't straight. Nor are the poles on the right. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.21.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 21:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info New version. I gave a bit more on both sides. --Hockei (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). (d.j.b.) 18.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 17:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Rain
  •   Info This looks like a black and white photo, but it isn't. During heavy rain showers it seemed. that all colors disappeared and there was this grim atmosphere. Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). Stormy wind and heavy rain showers above Langweerderwielen.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucas 17:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't quite speak to me.--Peulle (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There's a dust spot right in the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. spots removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite artistic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of details for this relatively small resolution. The trees are unsharp and like noisy. I also find this monochromatic picture a bit depressing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It is very difficult to capture the concept of 'wind' and rain since even if you and your camera are almost blown away, things usually look rather still in the resulting photo and the rain becomes frozen in a misty layer obscuring details. Also hard to balance the shutter time; if you want visible rain streaks, you get very blurry plants. Here the patterns of bending reeds and gushing water help to make visible the movement of wind and rain. The mono color also helps to bring out the ominous mood in the photo. Category changed to "Rain" since there are no geographical sub-categories in "Natural phenomena". --Cart (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. -- Karelj (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I also find it a bit depressing but that's what I like about the photo :) I also like how the plants grow directly from the waves. Otherwise per Cart. But Famberhorst, please add en English description. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for your comment. W.carter has now added an English description. Thank you very much.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Podzemnik Poco2 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd like to support it. But I cannot be a friend of the monochrome, sorry. --Hockei (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- This is what water in the Netherlands looks like, quite often. :) Artistic and/or depressing? Yes, both... MartinD (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Animated phenakistiscope disc - Running rats Fantascope by Thomas Mann Baynes 1833.gifEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 03:55:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I don't understand. Please could you explain which "reason" you're talking about ? Source. For me this is an awesome testimony of an amazing invention -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I find the effect of all the rats running at me unpleasant, but now that I realize this is meant to replicate a historic invention, I've crossed out my oppose vote. I'd support this for VI, but I still don't think a moving GIF actually has the same effect as the Phenakistiscope, because it's so common to see moving GIFs online. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, this is a modern technique applied to a 186 year-old document. Personally, I like the kaleidoscopic effect of this creation. But not animated, it would be very static for what it's supposed to show. Yes of course today moving GIFs are common online, but the phenakistiscope is regarded as one of the first forms of moving media entertainment that paved the way for the future motion picture and film industry. Today many trendy websites bring these old precursor drawings to the light. This piece is certainly one of the best quality and highest resolution we can find on the web in 2019 -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • But in the original technique, didn't you just look at "one" of running rats (or procession of rats) through a slit? Like this image shows. Just seeing one running rat would be less dizzying. Seeing this multi-rat version is only possible with gif. Or? --Cart (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This works like an optical illusion. The retinal persistence is the secret behind these animations. The GIF linked above is also an approximation. Through the hole, in reality we would see 10% images, by interruption at regular intervals, and 90% black foreground (that would be much more dizzying IMO). The advantage here is to see both the whole wheel and the animation. Hypnotizing for many viewers    . Today young and creative designers like Ana Taberko use this old invention for modern designs (it sounds like we can make new dishes with old good recipes). Similar FP in German and Persian Wikipedia -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 01:03:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info all by me Ezarateesteban 01:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 01:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. The composition looks off with an important object, the ring, cut off awkardly along with her second arm. In general the setting doesn't become clear: why has she the ring? Does the crowd behind her have something to do with it? Does she smile for the crowd or some individual? As it is no story is told and it makes it look like a random snapshot. – Lucas 08:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: it was a protest so there was a lot of people and a very difficult place to take photos, the ring is a tool to protest Ezarateesteban 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please give a proper name to this file. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The background is kind of noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I applied a bit denoising but I think that is acceptable for this kind of photos, thanks and regards!! Ezarateesteban 13:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support but I would like more space at the bottom. Yann (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded the entire photo without cropping, a lot of people around me, difficult to take phots, thanks Yann!!
  •   Comment I think a picture like this maybe needs a better caption to clarify what's going on. What was the protest about, and how is the ring being used as a tool for the protest? If I understood this, I'd be happy to support because the image quality is superb, but I don't really understand what I'm seeing at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Cmao20:, I was there as Commons's photographer, I don't have too much idea about this topic, but I investigate in Wikipedia and I improve a bit the description, Regards!! Ezarateesteban 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful, and thanks for making the effort. Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very, very good composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas, the cut-off ring doesn't work for me. -- King of ♠ 01:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Marinna (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good picture indeed, but the inevitable background distracts me enough for me not to consider it great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jalu (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Mont de Sëuc Seiser Alm Montes de Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2019 at 20:57:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I can see that only if I really pixel-peep at full size. Is that what you're doing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can see some of them in the preview and other zoom levels as irregular shapes that could be clouds, but really are the artefacts. Again, the ones placed right above the highest peak are the best example. – Lucas 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Moroder: I put notes on your high contrast image. The posterization is a sudden change in brightness and has an irregular shape. – Lucas 14:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would call those cirrostratus clouds (Schleierwolken). I don't see any posterisation on my Eizo monitor --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's possible that there was the "edge" of a cloud at the parting line originally, but as I see it something in the capture and/or post-processing (not necessarily your fault) made a harsh split of tones out of it there, with some speckles inbetween. I don't want to belabor this any more, I see artifacts that I'm convinced are not natural, but if I am alone in this it's okay. I hope it's not caused by my monitor ... – Lucas 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Needs theme music ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit warm with regard to color temperature for my taste, but still a fantastic shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, it's an alp, so I'm not a fan. But a very, very good photo of an alp. My own photos of this view and the Dolomites are unfortunately lost. --Cart (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's tempting to print it off and put on my wall. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Amazing quality like a beautiful painting, however, posterization on the sky. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, there is some mild posterization going on in the sky (Lucas, your monitor is OK). It is difficult to see because there is still some structure in the posterized areas: It takes place in the clouds, but it is very clearly an artifact of digital processing. I'd prefer to see this fixed, but it is a minor issue. --El Grafo (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Carloz Schwabe - Vincent d'Indy's Fervaal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2019 at 12:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:South 3rd Ring Rd west of Yangqiao (20180719154203).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2019 at 00:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created and uploaded by N509FZ - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I didn't expect to find this special, based on the thumbnail, but I like the really long sight line and the strange light and colors that combine storm clouds and smog. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the mood and the view but for me the quality is unfortunately not high enough. It is quite visible that it was taken with a cell phone. -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Neither composition nor image quality are outstanding --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I actually quite like the composition, but the image quality is not really good enough to be called an FP.--Peulle (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, with regret. Composition is lovely, but I'm not sure the iPhone is really capable of taking pictures of FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. --Cart (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Building at 3795 Carey Rd, Saanich, British Columbia, Canada 13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 20:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
  •   Info All by me. It's an office building at 3795 Carey Rd, Saanich, British Columbia, Canada -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really dislike this type of architecture, but you've captured it very well. Cmao20 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Cmao20 --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Weirdly enough, I think I'm starting to enjoy brutalism … I like how the various installations on the roof make it look like the bridge section of an ocean liner. --El Grafo (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I know the light trails are unavoidable with a 30-second exposure at that time of night, but that doesn't make them less distracting to me. They focus way too much of my attention. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice light, but this modern building is really ordinary. Beside, I find the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others – Lucas 08:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I didn't make any saturation adjustments, it's just the end of the blue hour. I had a version without the light trails, too, but I found this one more entertaining. The building is by a busy highway and I thought including the light trails would be a good representation of it. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps vibrance is too strong, as the yellows are very intense. Concerning the light trails, I agree they're distracting because the street is partly cut. They look intrusive, since they strike out both the sign and the building, making the composition really busy at the bottom -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile Morin; This image is in good quality, but the building is very ordinary. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above, you did a good job but I don't see this subject featureable --Poco2 12:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per others, after much pondering. Yann (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Chapel Interior 4, Royal Holloway, University of London - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 20:22:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The spots on the wall lit by the sun look pretty awkward, like a blur --Poco2 12:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Planken Wambuis locatie omgeving Mossel.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 17:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #Fog.
  •   Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice fog picture. --Hockei (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautifully atmospheric and a clear FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Love the fog and the location, but the image is not quite there for me. It lacks a clear subject or compositional idea for me: Neither the raspberry (?) scrub on the left nor the tree/hedge on the right are particularly interesting, but they dominate the scene, distracting from the nice-looking tree in the background. Or, if you say they are supposed to be the subject, then that nice-looking tree in the background distracts from that. The white balance is too warm for my taste, makes it look more like a sand storm rather than a foggy day. Or maybe not warm enough, if this was a golden hour shot (but it doesn't look like one to me) --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with El Grafo. The two shrubs, left and right, are not very nice and distract from the two central trees. I don't mind the WB, but the composition doesn't convince me. As an artistic photo, with mainly fog and no distinct subject, we need a better disposition of the elements in this space. Perhaps too much random here, or only shapes almost hidden. Immediately my eyes go to the right and feel not rewarded -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others: Nice mood, but the composition doesn't really add up fully for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Ikan, it doesn't come through completely. --Cart (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still a nice idea. I'd have probably supported if the 3 trees would have looked similar (kind of pattern) Poco2 12:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Very typical Dutch weather. :) MartinD (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Charles-Antoine Cambon - La Esmeralda, Act 3, Scene 2 set.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island (71943).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2019 at 06:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question - Is there a category for "Lower Manhattan Skyline" or "Downtown Manhattan Skyline"? If so, I'd suggest adding it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The size is not huge and the crop at the right a bit tight, but they are minor issues. Nice helicopter and image notes -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC) update after new upload -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very nice image, but not outstanding compared to other images of the same subject. The composition/crop feels a bit crammed at the sides, the level of detail is not that great and the position of the sun makes for a rather flat image. In my opinion, all of this is handled better in File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island September 2016 panorama 2.jpg. The chopper is about the only thing that sets it apart from similar views and I'm afraid that's not quite enough for me. All that being said, the image notes are very useful, so I think this would make an excellent VI. --El Grafo (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island September 2016 panorama 2.jpg works much better for me. Charles (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Charles. The composition and light is better in the other photo, which is also higher resolution. The helicopter isn't positioned and directed optimally to enhance the photo. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very instructive The image quality is very good and the informative label work sets it apart positively from other good images of this motif. --Milseburg (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Milseburg --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others, right crop is too tight --Poco2 20:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    The new crop is better, moving now to   NeutralPoco2 09:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per Colin and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice capture with the helicopter. Cmao20 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles and others --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The new version is much better, changed to   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Time went by between editing and uploading and I guess I didn't realize some space got lost while fixing perspectives (I think that's what happened anyway). So there's a new version which addresses the right crop. Obviously this doesn't address other issues brought up, so I doubt this will change much, but I would be remiss if I didn't upload and ping commenters anyway. :) @Uoaei1, Cmao20, Daniel Case, Poco a poco, Palauenc05: — Rhododendrites talk |  14:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Better, but I still prefer the other one. Charles (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better, but I also still prefer the other one. --El Grafo (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's fine. The other photo is bigger, but both compositions are good and I think it's not overkill to have a couple of FPs of the Downtown Manhattan skyline. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Same reasoning as Ikan. I would support the other image too for its superior resolution, but the helicopter makes this one a little different. Thanks for providing the improved crop. Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The helicopter is nice, but isn't special enough to make me support a 10.6 MP cityscape with blue sky and no clouds. -- King of ♠ 01:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Image:AB Schoental Kuehruhgraben.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2019 at 22:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by KaiBorgeest - uploaded by KaiBorgeest - nominated by KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely light, colors and composition, similar to a good painted landscape. I predict, though, that it will have trouble with people who think compositions like this one are too "busy". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The painting-like character of this shot makes it special. It's almost as if pictorialism made a comeback. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed it seems busy at thumb, but when you look at it in full size it opens up a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too busy. Charles (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Seems oddly light, like there isn't really much dark or black. Also wonder if the colour temp is a little blue. Overall it is ok, but I'm not getting much wow compared to some forests we've had with shafts of light or a clear composition. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin.--Fischer.H (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The focus is at the quite uninteresting foreground, light and colors are unnatural. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei1 --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dull light and colors, unsharp, busy composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose A good, well-composed photo but it doesn't really wow me, plus the background is not sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Jpcomic (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Invalid vote : Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Please read the guidelines. Also you need to explain your vote when opposing -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The foreground plant doesn't make for an attractive composition. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Félix, Torralba de Ribota, Zaragoza, España, 2018-04-04, DD 57-59 HDR.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2019 at 20:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Fri 15 Mar → Wed 20 Mar
Sat 16 Mar → Thu 21 Mar
Sun 17 Mar → Fri 22 Mar
Mon 18 Mar → Sat 23 Mar
Tue 19 Mar → Sun 24 Mar
Wed 20 Mar → Mon 25 Mar

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

Mon 11 Mar → Wed 20 Mar
Tue 12 Mar → Thu 21 Mar
Wed 13 Mar → Fri 22 Mar
Thu 14 Mar → Sat 23 Mar
Fri 15 Mar → Sun 24 Mar
Sat 16 Mar → Mon 25 Mar
Sun 17 Mar → Tue 26 Mar
Mon 18 Mar → Wed 27 Mar
Tue 19 Mar → Thu 28 Mar
Wed 20 Mar → Fri 29 Mar

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

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

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2019.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Archiving a withdrawn nominationEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the purpose that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.