Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and current month.

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

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

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'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.
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."

Photographs

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

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). 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}} -- ~~~~.

VotingEdit

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:Mannheim - Planetarium.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 17:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I think planetarium buildings are interessting in their shape and therefore not common or ordinary. The building is centered, like 95% of all building images are, also FP-building-images. The light is strong, the sky is blue, no rubbish, just a good and concise shot. If I compare this image to all other images this photo persuades with it's simplicity. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Old Parliament House Canberra Australia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 12:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info Old parliament house, Canberra, Australia. If anybody's wondering about the choice of an oblique angle, it's because there are obstructions out the front (see [1])
  •  Info Created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The buildings at the left and at the right look very distorted. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: Indeed they are distorted (rectilinearly at least). I had to stand quite close; it's a very difficult building to photograph. Of course, you're free to oppose if the distortion is too great for your eyes. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I will not oppose. But I think you can correct the distortion. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clear and technical good photography, but not really distinguished in my opinion. The numerous flagpoles and cars in front of the building are distracting the view of the building. Dont't know if this is really the possible best view of this building but this one doesn't approach me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Wladyslaw. I don't care for the leaning perspective and distortion. INeverCry 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:National Library of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 11:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Artificial Archipelagos, Dubai, United Arab Emirates ISS022-E-024940 lrg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 11:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
  •  Info created by NASA - uploaded by Captain-tucker - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support One of the most impressive NASA satellite images I've ever seen. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, a very good photo of how to destroy natural marine habitats. Any chance of getting the sea a bit denoised? w.carter-Talk 11:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    W.carter re: noise - are you referring to the white specks which are boats, or to the underwater aquatic life? Just wondering, because I'm not seeing digitizing noise on my monitor. Atsme 📞 20:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    The boats and the aquatic life in the shallow areas are fine, I'm talking about the dark blue areas, they look kind of grainy to me. Or am I missing something? w.carter-Talk 20:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    Nah, they look grainy to me too. INeverCry 20:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting from an educational POV, but not wowing to me. Quality could be better. INeverCry 20:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A closeup on the docks at lower left might have worked. As it is, it seems to have two subjects fighting with each other for the viewer's attention. And frankly, on first glance, I thought it was a view of some fungal colony in a Petri dish or under a microscope. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:A U.S. Navy Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class Robert Frey fabricates a steel countertop aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Aug. 20, 2013, while underway in the Gulf of Oman 130820-N-JC752-778.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  •  Info created by US Navy / MCSN Kole E. Carpenter - rotated by Pine - uploaded by - nominated by Pine -- Pine 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Pine 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sparkly! I wish I could prowl around a carrier for a month or so with my camera, so much activity and hardware to shoot... >(sigh)< --w.carter-Talk 08:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support strange... colors and less than perfect sharpness resemble 1940s film photography in a way. Could be a picture taken during WW2 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think the sparks are the main thing what make this picture an interesting enough composition for me to want to feature it, but the positions of the electrician and various objects also help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - cool shot! Atsme 📞 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The man seems a bit scrunched up in such a vertical composition. Other than that, a photo of a man doing a common job like welding isn't wowing for me. INeverCry 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per INC. You want cool sparks in a welding picture, cool enough to be an FP? Then compare the nominated image with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 22:43:25 (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 -- King of ♠ 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♠ 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak Pro I like the light situation. A nice capture although I think it needs a little bit more contrast. The crop bus station in the foreground isn't that fortunate as well. --Code (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe a tiny bit oversaturated --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree with Code on the bus stop. The light is very nice though. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good photo, interesting light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Building is just striking enough at this angle and in this light to offset the potentially distracting detail below. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 21:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •  Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the dark shadow. Whatever's behind his head, maybe an oval-shaped rock (darker than the rest of the shadow), is an added distraction, as it almost looks like it's connected to his head. INeverCry 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fair enough, but the harsh shadow is intended to add menace. Your 'rock' is one of its legs. Please remember that this is not a zoo picture and he was not particularly happy that I was kneeling down pointing a large camera lens at him Charles (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know if you really need to add much menace to a huge dangerous lizard, but good for you for having the guts to get in close... INeverCry 00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Strong support "Here he is ...Your komodoooo DRAAAA-gon". Although I agree that there's more of that shadow at the right than there needs to be ... perhaps you could get rid of that part with the bit of sun? Tightening the image so that the beast fills more of the frame would IMO go further toward your goal (already partially accomplished) of making it more menacing, leaving the viewer with only this small stretch of darkness to seek refuge in. Amazing coincidence ... I went out to get more whole-bean coffee at Starbucks, and because of this picture I picked Komodo Dragon Blend. And now that you've made him look even more badass, we can sing: "Mr. Ko Mo Do DraaaaaaGON ... Got to keep on draggin'" Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: See note. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Cropped version uploaded... Charles (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
My support upgraded to strong. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Healey Silverstone (17.06.2007).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 20:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Myurella nebulosa 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:PL-PK Mielec, rzeźba Miotacz (Henryk Burzec) 2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •  Info created and uploaded by User:Kroton - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I just really like the gesture the sculpture is making, and I think this photograph captures the sense of motion in this actually static work of art well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like the pose too, and the detail is great. But that may be its undoing. It looks like, in the pursuit of that excellence, the image might have been oversharpened (look at that bit of the white truck in the background for something a bit too processed). The WB also seems a bit too cool, even given the predominant colors. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I do see a bit of seeming oversharpening, now that you point it out. I think it's slight, though. Very small areas of the picture may be posterized. User:Kroton, would you like to make some edits based on Daniel's points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:La Roque, Salagou Lake 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you, hdr simulation from one RAW file, the less sharp areas were the most shadowed areas Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
oh no I know from where it come from, I try currently the DXO software free version and a bokeh simulation is activate by default, I will upload a sharper version...let me a few minutes Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Alchemist-hp, I uploaded a version without these setting, that should be better Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Now  Support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 19:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support An excellent example of how to make this sort of scene beautiful in autumn. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support while maybe less wow than I would like, it's a nice atmospheric landscape photo with an impressive level of detail. --Pine 04:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Cithaerias Esmeralda MHNT.ZOO.2004.0.976 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not remember all the butterflies I had the pleasure of photographing. But it remained in my memory. It's always difficult to photograph transparency. After several tests monochrome backgrounds; has a foam pad that I use support that gave the best result. But mostly I have had the pleasure of seeing a living, it's a real aesthetic shock. Thanks Christian Ferrer...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - nice! --Atsme 📞 19:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sublimely beautiful ... the kind of butterfly that inspires fine lingerie. Which brings me to think, Nabokov would be proud. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Another fine specimen from Projet Phoebus! -- Thennicke (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting! Jee 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Globen metro station May 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 07:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Elsie Leslie (1899) by Zaida Ben-Yusuf.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 04:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Võilille seemnis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 23:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
  •  Info created and uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would prefer much more depth of field (F3.8 used). Charles (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the depth of field. Helps the viewer focus on the essentials. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shallow DOF is good when the subject is perfectly aligned. Not here. Jee 02:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Depth of field is just a bit too shallow, making almost everything unsharp at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Once again: art meeting nature!--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the shallow DoF here is pleasing and gives a sort of soft 'halo' to the pic. w.carter-Talk 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF to low. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Personally I like the DOF. I don't see how you'd do otherwise for such a small object without focus-stacking -- Thennicke (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jee, Ikan and Alchemist. I can understand a DoF that leaves the spores blurry. But it should have all of the kernel in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Trachycephalus mesophaeus Albine.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 20:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

What's a false focus? and please add CA note to fix it --The Photographer (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The peak of the nose is sharp, not the head + eye. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the notes, CA now is fixed --The Photographer (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp area at right is a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the CA and now some areas look more sharpening, please, let me know if it is ok --The Photographer (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Acherontia-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I just tested a downsized version. Hope noise is acceptable in that size? Better? Jee 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better leave it, as it is. This specimen is better at full resolution. --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment marked improvement IMO, I wanted to talk to you about this software, I see you did not wait me :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pihtsusköngäs canyon in winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info all by Grtek -- Grtek (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Grtek (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment A very nice mystery picture were it is hard to tell the scale until you see the two skiers. Some blown parts on the ice and quite a lot of CA (purple + green) in many places. This should have been pointed out at QIC and fixed before this. Please fix the CAs at least. --w.carter-Talk 14:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wonderful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Just the sort of picture I like on a warm and humid late-summer day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think the lighting is helpful nor the position of the skiers. Charles (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Very sadly the most bottom part of the picture is in a strong shadow. Otherwise very worth seeing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Croatia BW 2014-10-10 12-41-09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 11:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice perspective and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A house hidden by a tree, an ordinary walkway, and an almost purple sky. I'm not wowed by this. INeverCry 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Like INC... Yann (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very nice but I think the top third adds nothing to the composition. I've suggested a crop. --King of ♠ 00:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry Berthold, but not enough for a FP in my opinion. Missing somthing special. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Панорама крај ОКТА.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 09:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, houses are leaning. --Kreuzschnabel 10:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Distortion noted by Kreuzschnabel is obvious even at thumb level; if it could be addressed I might be willing to consider supporting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Noisy sky, and the photo looks strange, overall. Maybe someone else will be able to pinpoint the cause, but the colors and light seem strange to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the building left is overexposed, the image looks to soft, usually composition: 50/50%. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bombus lapidarius drone - Carduus crispus - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 05:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Francis Fukuyama at Fronteiras do Pensamento São Paulo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 00:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info Fixed background distracting and microphone --The Photographer (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - like magic? At what point do edits become lies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I try to recreate the Francisco Fukuyama chin based on other pictures of him, however, this was a mental base and not real. We are changing here the main subject (Francisco) and it's a good question and I invite you to see the history of this FP --The Photographer (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I really do admire your photoshop capabilities! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sir :D --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry? This is one of the worst photoshoppings I have seen within months. Collar and background extremely pixelated, and the cloning on the chin is too obvious to be trustworthy. --Kreuzschnabel 10:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Pixelation on background is gone now --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Then you haven't seen any really bad photoshopping in the past months... ;-) But ok, at 100% the result is less convincing - which was to be expected. And please note that I didn't even support the edited alternative. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And another alternate. Pretty soon every nomination will have an alternate by The Photographer... INeverCry 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with INeverCry. The Photographer is good with the photoshoping and is apparently only trying to be helpful, but as I said before this is becoming a bit too much. w.carter-Talk 08:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, Understood, I'll stop doing this kind of photoshoping and yes I think this was too far --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Beggar woman carved in pinewood Gröden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 19:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Duna Mayor, Valle de la Luna, San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 173-175 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info View at dusk of two of the highlights in Valle de la Luna, the Great Dune in the foreground, and the Amphitheater in the background, San Pedro de Acatama, northern Chile. Poco2 17:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 17:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impresionante. --Lmbuga (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Splendid! Now, why do I suddenly have a hankering for a latte... --w.carter-Talk 18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressionante more than ever --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressionante! (2) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Really striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per w.carter. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Love that tiny little car in the middle ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is not perfect (noise on the sand dune), but nevertheless light and landscape are outstanding. --Ivar (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Grtek (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice, but Poco, can you please add the geo location? --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Wladyslaw:  added Poco2 09:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think it's the best composition but it's a lovely image in every other aspect -- Thennicke (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thennicke, would you please elaborate that? what composition would you have chosen? I'm curious. Poco2 16:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: The rock in the bottom left is an intrusion; it causes the image to be unbalanced. Your very best compositions (in my opinion) often include features in the foreground too (e.g. [2] [3]) So personally, if I could go there to take the image, I would try and find a way to show those closer rocks in a balanced fashion at the bottom of the image, while still showing the cliffs and sky in the background. But I'm not the master photographer here, and like I said, it's still a very good image. :) -- Thennicke (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, Thennicke, I get your point. I think that the foreground was balanced in the picture of the Tower of Hercules (which you btw linked above twice) because I was close to it and it helped to provide perspective. In this case I was elevated (I had to, otherwise the Amphitheater of rock in the background would not be visible). I can offer more of the rocks in the foreground here (see the former version of the file), but that would definitely not help. The only thing I can do is cropping out the rocks in the bottom. what do you (and others) think? Poco2 09:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: I fixed the second link above; my mistake. Honestly I don't think cropping the rock would help at this point, because then the image would be very narrow and have a boring sandy foreground. I would leave it as it is; like I said, it's a good photo. (I understand what you say about having to get to a high place to take the image; in my experience sometimes it's hard to actually find a good composition and I find myself wishing I had a drone to hold my camera) -- Thennicke (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thennicke, actually, in the moment I got your last message I had already uploaded an edited version. Please, let me find out what others think. I think that it's worth it, actually I prefer the alt version Poco2 10:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Inspirational...Atsme 📞 19:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AltEdit

File:Linares de la Sierra - Plaza de la Iglesia 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 15:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Spain
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info  Done for french translation, and now in use in the french wikipédia.--Jebulon (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Certainly QI but nothing outstanding for me. --Kreuzschnabel 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 19:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Moderate support I like the juxtaposition of forms. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • For now, I  Oppose, but if you cropped it more tightly, cutting off more of the top of the tree behind the well (right?) and including only one tree to its right, I might support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

  •  Info Fixes based on Ikan Kekek comments --The Photographer (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like everything is packed together tighter. Still no wow. INeverCry 06:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Hmmm...maybe cropped a little too close on top now. I need to learn how to use the crop suggestion tool. Thanks for helping out, though, and this is good enough for a  Neutral for me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


  •  Comment As this image doesn't seem to have a chance of promotion, I'm going to withdraw it. Thank you and special thanks to The Photographer for trying to improve not only this one but all the others. I'm really impressed that here at FPC the atmosphere is constructive and helpful although someone nominates a photo more or less modest. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your positive feedback and I hope help you in the future --The Photographer (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Basotxerri (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:CoA Catherine de' Medici Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 15:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •  Info Book created by the Master of the Petrarch Triumphs - found, uploaded, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Something different today, from the french national online library. Here we have a (restored by me) manuscript illumination featuring the coats of arms of dowager queen Catherine de'Medici, widow of king Henry II of France. This was included ca.1560CE in a ca.1500 CE illuminated prayer book manuscript called Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne. One can see that they are CoA of a widow due to the Ordre de la Cordelière around the escutcheon. This chivalric order was created after the death of her husband king Louis XII of France by queen Anne of Brittany, for widow noble women. You have at left (dextre in french heraldry) the CoA of kings of France, and at right (senestre, yes, it is inversed) the CoA of Catherine, showing her descent (Boulogne, Medici, Tour d'Auvergne). During her life, she was Queen Consort, and a very powerful Queen Mother of the three last kings ( brothers Francis II of France, Charles IX of France and Henry III of France) of the House of Valois of the Capetian dynasty. Her death marks the end of the french Renaissance. The original version of this image is available as first upload for comparison, as I usually do.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Might be QI but I see nothing outstanding here. Edges aren’t straight. --Kreuzschnabel 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Something wrong with your breakfast ? --Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • What’s breakfast? --Kreuzschnabel 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • No matter, just a joke: as you opposed with the same words two completely different pictures, I thought you were angry, maybe due to the fact that someone had stollen a part of your breakfast, or something. Please don't care, that's a french kind of reaction.--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The French and their food... --w.carter-Talk 21:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Stop trolling Kreuzschnabel, he has the right to eat his food cold like a vendeta. Bon apetite --The Photographer (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As far as I can see, this is an excellent rendition of an old illumination. Most likely made on handmade paper (no straight sides, vellum usually have cut sides) in an age when rulers and set-squares were optional. Colors are consistent with those of the era and so is the gilding. Granted, it's been some years since I studied such manuscripts at the British Museum, but from what I recall this seems ok. Nice to see something unusual like this here. :) w.carter-Talk 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per W. carter. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Градбата на Саат Кулата во Неготино 1.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 12:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •  Info created by Cibrev - uploaded by Cibrev - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess this photo in landscape orientation is better. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the landscape orientation would work better as the image depicts a wall of this tower.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • And what exactly is your reason? Your image is just a detail view of the wall structure and not the tower itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I want to say that, given that it's a wall of a tower with relatively short sides compared to other buildings, a landscape photograph from the same distance will capture the surrounding area of the tower that may spoil the composition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 21:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 01:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good QI, but not outstanding for me. portrait orientation is not suitable for me too --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think a bit of tower is FP and it's not very sharp. Charles (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't really get what people are liking so much about this composition. This tower might look good in context (depending on light conditions, et al.), but this crop of one side of it feels random to me, as does the resulting composition. I really wouldn't understand a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not special enough for FP. --Code (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a wall ... hm, not enough for an FP in my opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's missing "wow" factor. Atsme 📞 19:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for me this lacks wow. Sorry. --Pine 04:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Blue-tailed damselfies (Ischnura elegans) mating female typica 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 08:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Retzbach Maintal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 07:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •  Info created by Imehling- uploaded by Imehling- nominated by Imehling -- Imehling (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment for sure: this is a nice point for a pano. But here he have several problems: (1) The depth of the red color is to big. (2) The left part of the image with the church is strongly unsharp. (3) The whole image is gloomy and some parts (especially the shadow areas) are very dark. (4) IMO the reflections are not that nice to show them in this way. The layout of this motive is not very coherent in my eyes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded a new version with more sharpness, different crop (less bush on the right side), slightly less red, less blown areas and brighter shadows. As for the reflections: I like them ;-) --Imehling (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Reluctant oppose Unsharp all over, and too many blown areas on buildings. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel INeverCry 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Teddy Leonard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 06:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You don’t need to oppose your own nomination, yet you’re free to do so. --Kreuzschnabel 14:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I assume you only meant to "quote" some of the editors above with writing 'Oppose', but if you do so in that way here it means that you voted 'Oppose' for the picture. You can't vote both 'O' and 'S' on the same picture. Please sort this out. I also formatted the text for you. Don't start a line with a space or you get a box around the text, use : instead. Look in the editing window and you will see. w.carter-Talk 15:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Overexposed too, bright parts are blown. --Kreuzschnabel 14:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, jacket and background full of rainbow Chromatic aberration, white parts blown. If you want to see what level of sharpness is required here, please take a look at this musician at full size (100% not just full screen) and compare that with your photo. I would recommend that you first nominate your photos for Quality image to get them assessed and get some tips before you take them to FPC. w.carter-Talk 15:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
too unsharp you must be joking, not hard to tell your not a trained photographer.T Heart 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I am not opposing my own nomination... as stated obviously these images are being graded by untrained photographers T Heart 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Did you even look at the example (File:Hombre cantando por dinero en las cercanías del Hotel Humbodlt.jpg) that I linked to above? w.carter-Talk 18:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Better pose than the other one, but still unsharp in too many places. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
yes I did look at the sample and as stated about.... its all raw image and then photoshop photography, to get the effect. That's not skill that's photoshop. That is my point, without photoshop that image would not have the colours it does. Most photographers today have no clue what 'real photography' is as they do not know how to do it unless its photoshop. I am not from that era I am a trained photographer to use my skill. Most photographers today if they had to just 'use their skill' would fail badly at images. Thank youT Heart 13:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pat-carey.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 06:53:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info created by Imasku - uploaded by Imasku - nominated by Imasku -- T Heart 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- T Heart 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Also not very sharp to my eyes. As a musician, I'd like to support these photos, but I don't find them to be at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:, did you mean to oppose? Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for catching that error. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and very noisy. The bottom crop is a bit unfortunate. Sorry. --Cayambe (rest of sig broken by edit)
  •  Oppose Mot sharp enough. Did @Ikan Kekek: mean to support? Charles (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see explanation on your first photo. w.carter-Talk 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Quality way too low for such a small image. --Kreuzschnabel 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the same reasons as the first photo. w.carter-Talk 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per others. Poor technically and not really that striking a composition. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
too unsharp you must be joking, not hard to tell your not a trained photographer.T Heart 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I am not opposing my own nomination... as stated obviously these images are being graded by untrained photographers T Heart 16:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What a pity you’re the only trained photographer in here. Btw, may we see some samples of your work to adore? --Kreuzschnabel 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
yes I did look at the sample and as stated about.... its all raw image and then photoshop photography, to get the effect. That's not skill that's photoshop. That is my point, without photoshop that image would not have the colours it does. Most photographers today have no clue what 'real photography' is as they do not know how to do it unless its photoshop. I am not from that era I am a trained photographer to use my skill. Most photographers today if they had to just 'use their skill' would fail badly at images. Thank youT Heart 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Kreuzschnabel Did not say I am the only trained photographer, one of the few that uses trained skill not photoshop photography, there is a difference. The lighthouse below is my work and it has been disallowed. Last time I will submit my work. Enough of wiki. Thank you T Heart 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lyriothemis acigastra-Kadavoor-2016-06-26-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 23:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •  Info created by Till Niermann - uploaded by Till Niermann - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- w.carter-Talk 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, simply amazing and I can feel the geometric art here --The Photographer (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per The Photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice view, interesting light conditions. But it looks a bit to dark and underexposed for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Very interesting composition but a bit too dark -- Spurzem (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Upped the light a little bit per requests and cloned out the partial bird/UFO while I was at it. If Till Niermann don't agree with this, then I apologize and you can of course reverse it. The change was so very little that I did not see the need for a new version. We already have one alt version, no need for three since the change was suggested by two editor and I agree with it. If I was wrong in doing so, please let me know. w.carter-Talk 11:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Info Thanks for optimizing, I'm far from opposing the enhancements. --Till (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • That was reassuring, thanks for letting me know. If you want to vote for your own picture, you can do so if you like. w.carter-Talk 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark. --King of ♠ 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great composition! The editor of a photo calendar would probably prefer the de-molehilled version below, but the more I think about it the more I like this version, as they somehow break the otherwise strictly geometrical patterns in the image. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Also kind of reminds me of "Der Maulwurf Grabowski": a picture book I had when I was a child, telling the story of a mole who has to find a new place to live because people are turning his meadow into a construction site …
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great use of abstraction -- Thennicke (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

  •  Info Fixed black UFO, sharpening problems, noise and severals distracting objects like irregular lawn. --The Photographer (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - The only difference I see is that clods of dirt on the grass were cloned out, but those don't bother me. I won't oppose this, though; it's fine, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support move to  Neutral on this for less confusion now that the UFO is gone on the first. - Thanks for fixing the UFO (or part of bird top center on the other pic) and the noise. The lawn did not bother me in the original version, looks like they have a problem with some rodents or other animals digging there, but that is part of the landscape. I'm fine with either version. w.carter-Talk 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark. --King of ♠ 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the original. INeverCry 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info I preffer this version, for example, compares the eyes --The Photographer (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As always. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Is this legitimately an alt version? It is better, though, and I support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you Miguel for this nom. I always was fond of this subject and still cannot understand the outcome of the first attempt. Poco2 06:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I see I changed my mind. What did it is that I thought about how detailed the picture of the pelican is, and the background looks OK at full-page size, though it still looks strange to me at full size. Best for me not to think about that part too much... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Question What do you mean ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Previously, when this photo, now presented as an alternate, was nominated, I opposed featuring it on the basis that I couldn't get past the background on the right side being so blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 07:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm confused. This image is already shown in the gallery as FP. Charles (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Same as Charlesjsharp... Strange.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Jebulon, Charles: if it would be a Commons FP you'd see the FP star in the top right. As you can see in the FP template it is considered FP in the Spanish WP, but not in Commons. Poco2 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Mmmmh, yes of course, I've noticed this, but anyway, this picture is now listed as Commons FP--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I dont't get you Jebulon, Poco2 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please have a look to the current categorization of this file...--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Are those cats for exclusive use of Commons FPs? That would be knew to me. I have though no problem with removing any categories containing "Featured" and not in "xxx Wikipedia" if there is consensus about that, but it isn't the place to discuss that, I guess. Poco2 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The trees of Category:Featured pictures by country and similar, are only for Commons FP, because "FP's" on many wikipedia languages are not necessarily what we consider as the finest of Commons, making these categories rather trivial when sorted into. Thanks --A.Savin 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be on category page, anyway, now diliff will win the first place --The Photographer (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A.Savin: no problem, will remove the images that are FP somwhere but not on Commons (I just checked they are 20) from Category:Featured pictures by country and from Category:Featured pictures of landscapes (or whatever subject).
The Photographer: is there something to win? what do you mean? Poco2 06:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have the idea that in some point WMF will support the photographers with more FP. Maybe I'm wrong, however, could be nice see WMF supporting us with a camera or a lens, for example. --The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background is overpowering to me. INeverCry 06:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pine 04:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Chapel hill yellow in Palermo (Lantana Yellow).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 19:59:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:München - Olympisches Schwimmstadion1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 14:29:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bertha Lutz 1925.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 13:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Royal Albert Hall Rear, London, England - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 09:23:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Tsk, tsk, tsk... by now you should really know the answer to that and every other question as well. w.carter-Talk 17:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:MonumentoEcuestreaSanMartin-MDP-ago2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 22:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  • all by me Ezarateesteban 22:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Monument and tree. Well composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Mild oppose Soft and unsharp in a lot of places, and I don't think they work so well backlit against a clouded sky, and frankly they don't work together well for me, as the tree and the monument seem to be competing with each other for my attention. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Magenta cast, and I don’t approve of the lighting though I see the idea behind this. Too soft for a silhouette image. --Kreuzschnabel 17:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Alternate version

  • I uploaded another shot taken the same day, with better aperture and WB Ezarateesteban 00:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I would support this version, too, but I don't like the crop as much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
alt 3

  •  Info Fixes: noise, +sharp edges, magenta cast, removed distracting elements --The Photographer (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I think that 3 versions in one nomination is one too much, no matter what. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Eskibel - Paisaje.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good composition -- Spurzem (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 21:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Lovely composition and color, although I might have cropped a little bit off the top. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
     Done Hi Daniel, I've cropped a bit from above, yes, I think it's more harmonical this way. Thank you very much! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Wire should be deleted. Too much and not interesting sky IMO. Nice colors--Lmbuga (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Hello, Lmbuga, I understand you and possibly you're right but technically I wouldn't be able to let the wire disappear, sorry. Thanks for the comment! --Basotxerri (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No problem: Wires are not disturbing IMO.  Support Cute--Lmbuga (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 05:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Grtek (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • O sorry, I thought it was a detail of a church ceiling (I joke ).--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes esteban, I know....is the beautiful,blue sky,red sky and island. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting and beautiful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many posterized and unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Daniel is not posterized is the rarefied air ..... anyway where would unsharp? thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mostly per Daniel. It is rather noisy, there are practically no details at all on the sea, the sunset in itself is not extraordinary enough for an FP, the color especially around the islands is so posterized and saturated that at full size it almost looks like those psychedelic posters I had in my room during the 1960s, ok fond memories but not FP, sorry. --w.carter-Talk 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel & WC. INeverCry 22:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, it's a nice sunset, but except for the colorful striations in the middle, the picture pretty much just sits there, and at full size, it gets worse to my eyes, as explained by others above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lovely but the picture suffers from barrel distortion. I also wonder why it's that noisy at only ISO 100. --Code (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture, I think I'll have to oppose. A pity. --Code (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see distortion...and more a opposition more....what change? --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course that was more or less what I expected. Why are you participating here if you don't care about the feedback others give you at all? I really don't get it. This project is not just about collecting awards. --Code (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Because someone has talked about awards? Do not go out nonsense, I do not care about your opinion. It's different. This way you do it is pedantic and boring.--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was triying fix the noise, if it is not ok for you, please revert me LivioAndronico --The Photographer (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reverted --The Photographer (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture after of my comment I do not I received any feedback and btw, I agree with Code when he tell this project is not just about collecting awards and I found a lack of respect and maturity when LivioAndronico comment to Code I do not care about your opinion. It's different. Code deserves an apology --The Photographer (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And here's The Photographer who talk without being questioned. If you want respect then begins to respect others' opinions! Do what no one has asked you is not a test of maturity but of intelligence! However, I close here because probably become a boring speech which you are used to but I do not.--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Code: I would think Livio is participating here because he feels his photos deserve FP status. He's been right about this 96 times, so he's doing pretty well. If he doesn't want to change his images according to suggestions, so what? That's his business. Your comment about collecting awards is offensive. 96 FPs means 96 images of Livio's that were judged to be impressive enough for FP status. He earned those 96 FPs through his skill and talent as a photographer, he wasn't awarded anything. INeverCry 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Túnel natural, Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2016-04-03, DD 05.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 17:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info Natural tunnel with a viewer at the back :) in Hartelholz Forest, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice doggy (and tunnel)! :) But there is red CA on most of the branches at the top. w.carter-Talk 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And  Support --w.carter-Talk 08:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Has an almost hand-painted appearance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Interesting motif, but I'm not really feeling the composition adding up at full-page size, maybe partly because of the crops, and the blurring makes a lot of branches look like they have snow on them at full size. That's too much (or maybe the wrong kind of) distortion, in my view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I also wowed that there's something in Munich I've never even heard of - Hartelholz... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Lucky?? --Hubertl 20:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Right, Hubertl! Lucky!! :) Poco2 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Awww... --w.carter-Talk 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Is this the dog who doesn't swim? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, the one who doesn't like swimming :) Poco2 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak support I like the composition, although the branches seem blurry. --Pine 04:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Loojangu värvid 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 15:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Kreta - Kournas-See.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 08:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Greece
  •  Info all by Wladyslaw, Lake Kournas is the biggest natural fresh-water lake in Crete. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and very sharp -- Spurzem (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I again dislike an unsharp area in the foreground, this time in the near right corner, but it's a very small area. I also wish there were a little more room to the right as well as the left of the lake. But all that said, this is a beautiful photo, and I do think it deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support clear composition Thennicke (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 02:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 21:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places#Greece

File:Trifolium pratense - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •  Info Red clover (Trifolium pratense), all by Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB if off, and the image looks oversharpened (see dark lines at the countours) --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Uoaei1: WB was not off, look at shooting time (or maybe you haven't seen orange light during golden hour?). Leaf edges of the red clover are sometimes dark red, look this --Ivar (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I have also added the Category:Plants and trees at golden hour (set up some new cats since the first one was getting crowded) to the pic, same as I did to your previous flower. Perhaps you should remember to add that in the future to keep misunderstandings to a minimum. w.carter-Talk 10:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The droplets really make this golden-hour flower special. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Modelo didatico bovino correto.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 00:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info It's not a correction, it's a restoration from original file, because, IMHO Arion nomination has destructive alterations like oversharpening, overexposition and color saturation, btw, I preffer a black background, remembering that it's only my opinion --The Photographer (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really a nice work, thanks! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This has evident relevance for Wikipedias! Joalpe (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As a Wikipedian, I thank you. :) w.carter-Talk 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

* Support, although to make this even much more valuable, parts should be labeled. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - I'm finding the remarks in opposition pretty persuasive, particularly Adam's remarks below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  strong opposition what's that in the mouth of the animal? Did you invented a new part? And this is a anatomic model, colours are painted by the human, it's not oversaturated, it's the colour of the model, and could be any colour actually, it's a educational model... And it was not "destructive" was we do not have any lost of information. Next time, ponder your words, or at least bring truths... Btw, your cuts are not clear, and the reason is simple, you changed the background colour, but do not took into consideration the invasion that black creates, now we have harsh white knurled lines, and you also do not removed the invasion of magenta provoked by the model itself. Remembering that it's only my opinion. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
PS:I strongly suggest you bright down your monitor, the grey it's not even close to be black, and we do not have areas overexposed in the orginal image. Seeing those evidences, your monitor is probably away more bright that should be to work with images. If you do not believe me, check the histogram... grey vs black. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Rodrigo please, we are here to learn, take it easy. --The Photographer (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
well, The Photographer, we are here to collaborate, not for learning, learning is the reward, and you started listing number of problems that was not there, and more, qualifying the contribution as "destructive". How this is collaborative? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rodrigo, please don't take it personally, how you can see, destrutive is a word very used here. --The Photographer (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The Photographer 23 results, we can not classify as very used, we have more presence of the word "shit" [4], and this do not mean that is good way to classify the work of someone, and more, using adjectives in an evaluation it is not appropriate and unproductive.
You still wrong in your affirmative...
And removing the poll and the clamps, made this away more unrealistic that already was, if you will remove the poll, remove the base... Clone stamping something so big should have the {{Retouched picture}} warning, specially in FP. Did you notify the volunteers that voted before this modifications? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Pido disculpas si fale uma coisa errada, analisando um pouco, tudas as modificações som destructivas e a gente faz sempre o melhor independentemente gente para algums seja bom o ruim. --The Photographer (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not comfortable with the amount of digital edits made. It is what it is, and removing the pole, changing the background... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thanks for your recomendation, however, the pole is a rusty suit that has nothing to do with the main subject and black blackgrounds are used in most scientific anatomy books to enhance the main subject. --The Photographer (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't just a diagram; it's a model. It loses a lot of value if parts of the model are removed. Besides the pole, the various screws and latches were also removed. But not the base. It's an awkward hybrid; you're basically trying to turn a photo of a 3D object into an SVG diagram. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Atsme 📞 18:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2016.07.04.-26-Eilenburg-Ost--Distelfalter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 17:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Giorgi Balakhadze - uploaded by Giorgi Balakhadze - nominated by Giorgi Balakhadze -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Welcome to FPC, Giorgi Balakhadze! It's really a good start, but being a cell phone camera, the level of detail is somewhat limited. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Very weak support per Arion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I would suggest cloning out that black thing at top left in the sky. Good to see a nomination not shot with a multi-1000$ camera/lense. INeverCry 18:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is a beautiful scene, but I think the level of detail should have been a bit better here for an FP. This is not your fault, it's just us being very picky here. I also think you should nominate these for Quality Image and one of them for Valued image. We would also appreciate if you could provide the coordinates for the camera location on the files so that they can be displayed on OpenStreetMap and Google Earth. Please look at this files page to see how that is done. w.carter-Talk 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scenery, and the quality is quite good for a cell phone - but not enough for FP level. Details are too unsharp, and parts in shadow are too dark and noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - That's quite an impressive cell phone pic! But what is that black streak in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment It can be an eagle or something like that. I don't remember I was concentrated on the lake.--g. balaxaZe 06:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It doesn't come across as an eagle. If you'd be willing to remove it (clone it out), I would support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes beautiful place, but still we have our quality standards. Btw, the one below is better. --A.Savin 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia 02.jpgEdit

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

  •  Comment well, given the miniscule size of the camera's sensor (4mm diagonal), the f-stop as such is more than adequate. The lack of sharpness (at least when compared to more advanced photographic systems) is due to the sensor itself. This being said, the picture's still good enough imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Striking, especially that cloud shadow. Also the effort of getting these photos (reading the description) rivals this nom. w.carter-Talk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details. I also miss something special in this scenery. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this image is very good. Perhaps we could look for lacks but we should not overdo. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think this image is beautiful, poetic and deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful but too unsharp for a 6 MP image. --King of ♠ 23:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Junonia atlites-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Zaadpluizen van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Asteraceae.
  •  Info Seed Fluffs Cirsium vulgare in mild evening light. Location The Famberhorst in the Netherlands. All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 07:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 07:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm going to dissent here. The thistle is quite clearly photographed, but the aggressively blurry grass distracts my eyes too much for me to be able to enjoy the photo's composition or even feel that it's good. Perhaps if the background were faded further, I might feel like supporting, but I don't really suggest for you to do that now, because then you'd have to ping everyone... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:7N Djurgårdslinjen SSB A2 24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 16:10:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Land vehicles
  •  Info created/uploaded/nominated by Alexandar Vujadinovic -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - as nom. - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a beautiful picture that brings back fond memories for me and certainly a QI or VI, but that modern tram behind the tram spoils the image for me and an FP should be perfect. (not suggesting it could be cloned out this time) This museum tram runs so often that it would be no problem to wait for one with no modern vehicles around it. The architecture around this stop is from the 19th century so the perfect setting for the tram otherwise. Also you got the geo tag wrong, it has this as on the bridge, but the stop and this pic is on Strandvägen at 59.331748, 18.092906 just before the bridge even if the stop is named after the bridge. Sorry, but thank you for showing it. :) w.carter-Talk 17:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the location data, I've updated the page now. As for the newer tram in the background, I waited for it on purpose because I thought it'd be fun to have the newest and one of the oldest in the same image - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining how you thought, perhaps others will see this the same way you do. Had it been a side-by-side or more shown of the new version, I would have agreed with you, but not as it is unfortunately. w.carter-Talk 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per WC. INeverCry 21:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, plus I don’t like the current collector to be cut off as it is part of the coach. Sorry if it sounds harsh but this strikes me rather as a tourist shot than a carefully composed image. I am sure this can be done better, in a less busy environment. --Kreuzschnabel 22:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschanbel. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 14:02:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Diese "distorted"-Behauptung wird nicht wahrer vom ständigen Wiederholen. Ich warte immer noch auf Deinen Vorschlag, wie man solche Kircheninnenräume denn besser abbilden sollte. --Code (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • durch natürliche Projektion. --Ralf Roleček 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Aha. Und was ist das, "natürliche Projektion"? Ergänzung: Dein Bild hier wurde mit einem 10mm-Objektiv gemacht und hat eine geradlinige Projektion. Das Bild von Diliff wurde aus mehreren Bildern zusammengesetzt und entspricht einem 8mm-Objektiv, ebenfalls mit geradliniger Projektion. Deins ist ok, seins nicht oder wie soll ich das verstehen? Erklär mir den Unterschied. --Code (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, ich muß zugeben, darauf habe ich keine Antwort. --Ralf Roleček 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral See several discussions below.  Oppose It really is beautiful and perfect, but IMO too beautiful and perfect, it doesn't look real, more like some computer animation from a film or a game with a huge budget and very good animators. Truly sorry. w.carter-Talk 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: Sorry, but I really don't understand why you opposed. Please, explain me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ArionEstar: I explained it below to Ikan, is that enough or should I do this once again here? w.carter-Talk 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ArionEstar: Now this is turning into a philosophical discussion, by "too perfect" here I meant that it was so flawless that it looked unreal. Kreuz said it better in his explanation when he called it overprocessed and oversaturated. That was the "photography-speak" I was looking for. I am not wowed by this picture, it has perspective but it does not convey a sense of depth, the light is flat, the arches nearest the camera are far too distorted, the stained glass window at the end looks too bright. I don't find this image as stunning as the rest of his church pictures. But I will probably be explaining this "not-wowed" for the rest of my life if I keep up opposing this, so I move to neutral instead. I've learned my lesson. w.carter-Talk 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about expressing your opinion... You might be right or you might be wrong, but you're entitled to a subjective opinion. You may have a point about the flat lighting anyway. It's not actually flat (there is plenty of contrast), but there was a huge range of luminosity in the scene and the only way to 'squeeze' it into a normal low dynamic range image is to compress it and sometimes that makes it appear flat even when it's not. As I said below, I think reshooting it when the lighting was more balanced would help, but for now, this image is what it is. :-) Diliff (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support perfect as always. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - It certainly looks real to me. W.carter, I have to shake my head in disbelief at the idea of opposing a photo because it's "too perfect". Because really great computer animators can produce a fine simulacrum of reality now, we're going to penalize the very greatest photographers for their level of perfection? I think that's not only absurd but really objectionable, and a totally untenable basis for opposing a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: We deal very much in subjectivity when casting our votes on these candidates, and describing why you don't think something that ought to be ok, is not, that's very difficult. That was the nearest I could come to explaining why the image did not appeal to me. Perhaps I should have used a language like 'flat light', 'too bright stained glass windows', 'arches nearest the camera looking distorted', 'even though it has perspective, it does not convey a sense of depth'. A perfect rendition of something is not necessarily a good photo. Would such a description be more satisfying? We all have our own way of describing why we like or don't like a photo. You often talk about "moving your eyes around the photo", an expression I have never understood, but I respect that as your way of describing how you take in a picture. Mine is often by using simile or metaphore. w.carter-Talk 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Those specifics make sense to me. In terms of moving one's eyes around the picture frame, see if you can find information about the linear arabesque. My father, a painter, cited a specific treatise, but I don't remember its name at present. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll see if I can look that up somewhere. And I'll use a more direct language in the future. We don't want things to get 'Lost in translation'. w.carter-Talk 07:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Diliff is the best church interiors photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That, I can totally agree with! :) But even the greatest masters sometimes create works that does not appeal to everyone. I don't like all Rembrandts just because they have his signature either. w.carter-Talk 21:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An odd discussion indeed. I'm very surprised at being pummeled like this for having a different opinion than the rest of the community, I thought that was allowed. I'm starting to feel like a heretic in front of the inquisition for daring to not be wowed by a work of Saint Diliff The Magnificent! But if it saves me from being burned at the stake, I can change me vote to 'Neutral' so as not to hinder the speedy ascension of His work to FP. ;) --w.carter-Talk 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • w.carter: Ups, my last comment was way more harsh than I intended it to be. I should have added a smiley or two. I've realized that after re-reading it. I absolutely and honestly didn't want to attack you or your right to an dissenting opinion which I do - of course - respect. Therefore I'd like to apologize for my tone. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: Come on, this is ridiculous and you know it. Your opinion is always very welcome. But that doesn't mean that other's aren't allowed to reply on your comments as well. This is what we call a discussion. It's quite simple: If you don't want others to reply on your comments you shouldn't post them in the first place. However, I agree with you that language is often a problem here at FPC. I'm not a native English speaker as well and I often don't really know how to express my opinion properly. Thoughtfulness is the key, I think. --Code (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, I know. I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone else and I can give as good as I get. No need to apologize for anything neither you or Martin, I have a very thick skin. Now I also know that speaking metaphorically may be nice when discussing art or the taste of a good wine, but not so much when discussing photos here. I should have tagged my comment above with a ";)" to clarify that I made that one smiling. (now fixed) And to explain a bit, part of my job is to go through hundreds of almost identical photos of something each day and decide which one is the best for a cover, an ad, a brochure, etc. So I'm more used to the "in or out" system, "neutral" is new to me. w.carter-Talk 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Though I usually am a great Diliff fan this is overprocessed in my eyes. Colours oversaturated (see all red areas, and even the blue books). Impressing level of detail of course but the look at 100 percent is too unreal for me. --Kreuzschnabel 22:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, this is even better than I thought ... come for the quality church interior, stay for the German lesson . Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great // Martin K. (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment. From memory this was a tough interior to process. I don't think the colours are unrealistic, especially on the books. If anything, the stained glass was the hardest part to process and some parts are blown a little bit (even with 5 bracketed images with 2-3 stops between them!). I would like to visit again when the light isn't as harsh, I think the stained glass would look better that way. But it's still quite accurate I think. Diliff (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Insula Maioricae Vicentius Mut 1683.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 13:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yep, looks terrible in FF but fine in Chrome. INeverCry 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 Question - Wait. What is this about Firefox? And how will it look on smartphones, which a lot of people will use to view it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the problem. This evening I will try to get rid of those ICC-Data tags that seem to be causing problems with Firefox. --Hispalois (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)  Done by El Grafo (see below).
  •  Oppose per Alchemist. If it's hard to view, it's not a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, but it's fine with me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Arion. INeverCry 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not having a problem reading it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support any chance to fix the profile problem? IE and Safari work, FF doesn't. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It was using a strange, non-standard colour profile called Metis DRS 2A0 CC24. Tried converting to standard sRGB using Gimp – new version looks normal to me in Firefox now (but @Hispalois: please feel free to revert my version if you've got a better solution). --El Grafo (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Your version fixed the issue. Thank you very much! --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not an original, just a 1946 reimpression. Far much less value--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I agree that an original would fetch much more money in an auction but regarding the encyclopaedic usefulness of the image I'd say there is not much difference. It should be noted that this was a true reimpression, from the original copperplates, not a facsimile. --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - El Grafo, thanks for fixing the problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 06:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Does the black frame need to be that thick? Is it needed at all? I find it distracting. --Till (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-628.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 13:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info St. Pölten, Austria, Landhausviertel-Boulevard - all by --Ralf Roleček 13:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ralf Roleček 13:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Great light, great lines, great perspective, great desolation, but still lacks something... w.carter-Talk 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special in the architecture, average quality. Too much ground and too few roof. --A.Savin 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - I quite like this photo, but I'd love it if you could sharpen it a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Savin. INeverCry 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Living myself next to St. Pölten, I have to say: boring architecture. Also too much floor on this picture. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support, mostly per w.carter. Regarding the floor, I think there must be so much of it for getting the lines together in the centre of the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Dark areas are a bit dark (plants). I like the floor in this picture. Good composition IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good but not quite good enough for FP, I feel. This might be a good photo for a Wikipedia article about this location, but for Commons, I feel that this lacks wow. --Pine 04:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar E-Type series 1 coupé 1964.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 09:12:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •  Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, no. Great car and detail, unfortunate background, especially with that distracting message/ad in the window. Again we ask the impossible of photographers at FPC, such as walk on water, hover in the air or get the owner of the car to park it at a better location. Ok, I'm only assuming it is not your car, if it were I think you would have chosen a better location to shoot it. w.carter-Talk 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but per above. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)