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:Sea Monster.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Natrix natrix in Tallinn, Estonia

File:Flamencos andinos (Phoenicoparrus andinus), Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 61.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia.

File:Hong Kong Railway Route Map ring.pdfEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 09:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Concentric MTR diagram
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sameboat - uploaded by Sameboat - nominated by Sameboat -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Hong Kong MTR (metro system) diagram in distorted concentric ring pattern. PDF version is created to better represents author's intention of the source SVG due to technical limitations of rendering SVG on Wikimedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your nomination. I'm guessing you want us to judge the shapes of the map as art? If so, I'm sorry, but I don't find it compelling enough to feature. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can’t see anything special in that either. Most route maps of public transport are simplified and schematised in a similar way. – (I once came across a map of hiking routes in the Lake District designed like the London Underground map. Nice idea!) --Kreuzschnabel 10:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hight EV, however, try make it SVG. PDF is for documents --The Photographer (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2016.05.08.-07-Viernheimer Heide-Viernheim--Feld-Sandlaufkaefer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2016 at 19:26:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green tiger beetle - Cicindela campestris

File:Gorilla gorilla (Savage & Wyman, 1847) in Hanover Zoo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 19:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gorilla gorilla in Hanover Zoo.

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Simpatic, good composition. --Mile (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good photo, and I feel really sad for the gorilla. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Holy cow, I just realized this photo was taken in 1847! I was voting to support it based on it being a new photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the naming of the species is from 1847 and is done by Savage & Wyman. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also i did so. Then its not stated correct Michael Gäbler. There is different format for pictures. --Mile (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Suppose it needs different description then, why is naming there and year. Disruptive. Gorilla gorilla would be good. If author wanna proceed, then say nomenclature made by that and that in that year. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for description. --Mile (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the scientific source: Domain: Eukaryota • Regnum: Animalia • Phylum: Chordata • Subphylum: Vertebrata • Infraphylum: Gnathostomata • Superclassis: Tetrapoda • Classis: Mammalia • Subclassis: Theria • Infraclassis: Eutheria • Ordo: Primates • Subordo: Haplorrhini • Infraordo: Simiiformes • Parvordo: Catarrhini • Superfamilia: Hominoidea • Familia: Hominidae • Genus: Gorilla • Species: Gorilla gorilla (Savage & Wyman, 1847). See: [1]. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article the "Western lowland gorilla" is "Gorilla gorilla gorilla", not just "Gorilla gorilla" and the "(Savage & Wyman, 1847)" suffix is simply ridiculous. It would be like me taking a picture of a Vallium tablet and writing "Vallium (Sternbach 1963)". Please don't overcomplicate things with data only a taxonomist would understand or appreciate. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael Gäbler You have to made that clear in description, in Deutch perhaps. Now i doubt when i read, and sure some other will think its picture. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 04:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It’s certainly a nice pic but that’s not what FP is about. And I don’t see much featurable here, the image size barely above 2 mpix and the face of the gorilla not even quite sharp at that small resolution. FP threshold for mammals used to be a bit higher. --Kreuzschnabel 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Far too small for a photo taken at a zoo in May 2016, and not ultra sharp at that. Sorry but zoo photos have no excuse for being anything less than exceptional technically. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 04:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anna Palm - A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 18:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel by Swedish artist Anna Palm de Rosa

File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924, edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 13:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
A 1924 photo. Edited from File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924.jpg -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

City of London skyline from London City HallEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 22:04:42 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Colin, User:Diliff and User:Slaunger. Uploaded and nominated by me. On Open House London 2008, Diliff took a photo from the roof balcony of City Hall of the City of London. Seven years later on Open House London 2015 I took an updated picture. Slaunger had the bright idea to align the images using PTGui. After some minor tweaking of his PTGui project and a little sky-filling in Photoshop, we have here two images that are identical apart from seven years of change. I hope you enjoy flipping between these two images to see which buildings have been added and which demolished. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, Colin, for elborating on my half-baked project! I wish Wikimedia had the possibility to animate the transition between the two. It would be more powerfull and you would better see also the differences in tide level, direction of light and slight difference in season (colors of leaves). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both images are high resolution (39MP), permitting a detailed examination of seven years in the development of the City of London. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Idea, I will make a juxtapose on tool labs to see this picture and stimulate before>after pictures --The Photographer (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 22:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very innovative nomination. I'm surprised they're exactly the same resolution! --King of ♠ 01:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~ Moheen (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very impressive --DXR (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Idea --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fantastic historical document! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good idea. By the presence of cranes it seems that there shall be even more towers soon. --Ximonic (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the whole area still very much under development, with more towers planned. See also this version of the image which shows much more to the left. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic idea, perfectly executed. Great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love how you managed to captured one of the same boat! :D -- KTC (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Indeed a good idea, and well tweaked for near-perfect alignment of the two images. And hey, I get a FP for free? ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Not so sure about this Colin, 2 almost id pictures going into before-after Feautered nominee does not follow any FP procedure, eventually is doing against. This is definately Valued Image procedure where years could and should be taken in aspect. If not, we can make panorama for every time new building is made, hence FP category might have plenty of almost same stuff - how would some user choose them when he click the best one, the Feaueterd one ? --Mile (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think overall, Commons FPC is more willing to accept high-quality duplicates than English Wikipedia FPC, where EV is important and an old image can lose its EV to a newer image by virtue of being replaced in the article in which it was used. --King of ♠ 17:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great idea and excellent pictures. --Code (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support !! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Roquebrun and Orb River cf02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 21:54:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roquebrun and Orb River, Europe, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm somehow feeling a lack of wow. I don't know whether it's the light of the overcast day, perhaps the crops that cut off buildings on the right and left, maybe a lack of sufficient contrast? This is certainly a very good picture, but I'm not feeling this as an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very nice and interesting landscape. Good work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~ Moheen (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose per Ikan. Color seems more subdued than what the overcast day would account for. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Agii Apostoli church back agora athens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I feel like the right crop is too close, but I don't know what's a bit further to the right. To me, this is a very good Quality Image, but not a FP, although if the right crop could be extended further right, I'd look at the result and might very well reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Ikan. This is the reverse of those images where I have suggested tighter crops ... here, I think it would benefit from a wider view and some more context. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks Tomer T. I think it is good for FP, and the crop is enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 04:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Turmfalke maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Jaipur 03-2016 05 Amber Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jaipur, India: detail of fortification of the Amber Fort (aka Amer Fort)

File:Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Abside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 07:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Abside.jpg
  • I think they are part of the balustrades,yo can see also here,thanx --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I thought there might be restoration going on in the church. I find them distracting, but since the photo is beautiful otherwise, I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support, anyway. That said, they would be a legitimate reason for others to oppose the photo as not being in their opinion one of the finest on the site because of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong glare in the corners, and the contrast/colours of the gilded portions are simply unbelievable (and I don't mean that in a good way). -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • unbelievable ..... who cares about your opinion? Not me --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Livio my friend, you could disagree, but you should do care about all opinions here, if, not, why nominating ? So do I, especially about Colin's opinion, he is wise enough in reviewing. So do I.--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • yes Jebulon infact I do not care HIS opinion and vote or negative or not vote. It is ridiculous that there are two or three people here that vote to my photos only and only negatively and then with ridiculous and colorful expressions! People like you or Daniel,Hubertl, Martin, nevercry,Ikan etc. are serious people who voted or positively or negatively ..... other only negatively and it seems ridiculous --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the glare in the upper right corner. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It helps, but I'm not sure it can be completely eliminated. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Thaddeus M. Fowler - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1902.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 23:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pittsburgh in 1902

File:2016 Minolta Dynax 404si.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 17:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Minolta Dynax 404si
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not FP level. The felt (?) surface, while seamless, is really distracting like noise. Unless the surface/background has some attractive qualities of its own, I think it needs to make itself invisible to the viewer. The camera isn't clean. I appreciate this is not brand new, but we have other vintage camera photos that are much better prepared than this. It's tedious, but makes a big difference. The lighting appears to be available light rather than arranged softened flash/strobe lighting. The consequence is we see your room in the lens reflection, rather than simple shapes of light that highlight the lens curvature. The body lacks the 3D form that arranged lighting would achieve. The colour temperature is perhaps a little warm. And the "face" of the camera is the "Minolta" logo which is in shadow. Compare this and this. I suggest also to angle the camera a little more and cropping more on all sides apart from the left. I suspect it won't be easy to make the plastic metal-effect body look as cool as a metal body or superior plastics. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The camera itself looks a bit noisy at full size. I might feel a bit nitpicky, except that the photos Colin links are persuasively better than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. INeverCry 01:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. Not well served by the dark background. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Torreparedones - 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 14:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The basilica in Torreparedones Archaeological Park (Spain)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info These are the remains of the basilica, located in the forum of the ancient Roman village of Torreparedones. Created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ElBute (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don’t see much special in the photograph, though the motif as such is certainly interesting. Would be better taken from a more elevated point to keep the near pillars from covering the far ones. The cloudy and partly blown sky doesnt add much aesthetic value I’m afraid. Maybe a VI but not featurable for me. --Kreuzschnabel 21:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The different sizes and shapes of the columns are fun to move my eyes around, and the shape of the cumulonimbus clouds is also helpful. I'd like to see this in more sunlight, too, but that could be another nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 01:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Victoria amazonica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 06:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Flower from the Giant Amazon Water Lilly (Victoria amazonica) at the Adelaide Botanic Garden."

Alt 1Edit

Victoria amazonica ks01.jpg
Original photo by Bilby, edited by Kreuzschnabel

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also pinging Ikan Kekek. --Pine 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm always amazed when I see one of these. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the flower, but the green thing/shape in the corner does nothing for the composition. INeverCry 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s a leaf of the same plant. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for composition as above. Certainly nice but not that special to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Weeze, Flughafen -- 2016 -- 2522-8.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 04:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Terminal building of the airport, Weeze, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Sorry. Thanks for your hint. CAs (green at the left of the building and magenta at some lamps) are removed now. The color (orange/red) at the both post at left belongs to the sun from the left and the reflections of the windows right from the posts. --XRay talk 05:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. A bit of red bleeding is unavoidable at this high contrast. --Kreuzschnabel 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but the image is tilted and there is vignetting visible on the top right corner, while the composition itself is not convincing enough, as the lamp posts distract attention from the terminal building of the airport as the main object.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done The tilt is fixed. But I can't see the vignetting. It's Blue Hour with sunlight at the left and the upcoming night at the right.--XRay talk 08:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - When I saw the thumbnail, I thought "So?" I was expecting to oppose this photo as a boring motif. But at full-page size, the gradations of light, tone and shape become apparent, and make this otherwise ordinary scene surprisingly enjoyable to move my eyes around. This is an excellent photo, and more so because it took a great photographer to see the possibilities in such a seemingly ordinary subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Qian Nivan  Talk 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't really know why but this picture looks really special (and beautiful). --Code (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice detail, color and symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cascade du Bief de la ruine en avril.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 01:38:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pmau - uploaded by Pmau - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Pretty waterfall, but doesn't really wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice place too but unfortunate light, leaving the main object in shadow while the bright light on the right makes the shadow look even duller. Then, it really lacks sharpness! As for composition, I’d prefer to see the top end of the waterfall as well. --Kreuzschnabel 04:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not bad, but I feel we'd all be better off with a separate nomination of the proposed alt, below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

Cascade du Bief de la ruine en mai - img 37966.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This version was taken in May. Sharper than the other image, with more uniform lighting and nice green trees.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Milder Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I feel like this is a significantly better photo, but some of the crops bother me, especially the way the trees are cropped on top. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not an alternative !--Jebulon (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon – this has to be nominated separately. Only minor edits on the same shot can be put up as an alternative. --Kreuzschnabel 08:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Procedural oppose per above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Île Saint-Martin, Gruissan cf09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 16:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Island Saint-Martin, Gruissan, France
✓ Done @King of Hearts: thank you, in all cases this is an improvement IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I agree that this is a pretty big improvement. (By the way, <<en tout cas>> in English is "in any case".) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thanks... :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Oye stave church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 16:24:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Øye stave church in Øye, Vang, Norway.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Øye stave church in Øye, Vang, Norway. A small but beautiful and very charming stave church. Picture taken in a sunny day, as opposed to the rest of the pictures in the category which were taken under a cloudy sky. Created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ElBute (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one, quality is good. --Mile (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is beautiful and very restful to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Code (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful image, but such large blown areas in the clouds are a no-go for me here, even more so in an HDR. Compo a bit too centered for me, I’d prefer to pan the camera slightly to the right. Would have prevented the cow on the left from being beheaded, too. --Kreuzschnabel 04:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not an HDR. I'm aware it seems as if it is, but it's not. I share your preferences towards non centered photos, but I like this one centered. The cow will be cloned out this evening. --ElBute (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The beheaded cow has been cloned out. Highlights in the clouds have also been reduced. --ElBute (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • ElBute was there someone sitting on left bench before ? --Mile (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. It was a flare I had to remove. --ElBute (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. I think the dark areas were brightened. So there is (minor) noise. --XRay talk 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it a lot, but, in this case, the good things about it cannot overcome the blown highlights in the clouds noted by Kreuzschnabel. If they could be cleaned up or toned down I'd probably support. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Highlights were reduced in the second upload on 20th May. Anyway, they were not blown up in the first version of the image (the histogram said) and they're not in this second version. I don't think it's a flaw in the image but a distinguishing feature. --ElBute (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk),

File:Bomen hebben het moeilijk in het winderige klimaat op de voormalige zeebodem. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 15:56:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Damaged trees.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Trees are struggling in the windy weather at the former seabed. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - I wasn't thinking that much of this as a thumbnail. I like it better at full-page size, but I think I'd like it a lot better if it weren't cropped so close on top. I don't suppose it's possible to change that, is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Answer: 18mm focal length. I come to the recording does not further deteriorate.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand, but I guess the answer is that it's not possible. I'm not quite wowed by this picture, but I really like your appreciation of nature. I guess I have to admit I'm not so sure this is really a FP, but I'm maybe 60% sure, and that's reflected in my mild support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the light and the colours very much. It's different from what we usually see here. --Code (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --A.Savin 00:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Eudocimus ruber no Brasil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 15:02:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eudocimus ruber in Brazil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jaime Spaniol - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, definitely not sharp enough for an FP bird photo, as the standard of FP bird photos is extremely high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose oversharpened and overexposed (bright areas on legs, red channel blown on the sides, making the colour look blueish). Centered composition does not work for me. --Kreuzschnabel 04:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 22:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. Also, per me: background way too busy, colors off, as if it had been processed with the sole goal of getting the bird "right". Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bieszczady - Halicz (by Pudelek).JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 12:23:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bieszczady mountains, Poland


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 51-54 PAN.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 11:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate YNP1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 01:58:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Gate Canyon in Yellowstone National Park
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Golden Gate Canyon In Yellowstone National Park, with a storm developing over Mammoth Hot Springs in the distance, all by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Breathtaking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great picture compositionally but unfortunately the noise reduction and the saturation of the sky both seem to be far overdone. Maybe fixable. --Code (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The composition with the motif is great but the overall technical quality seems to be questionable. The saturated sky looks a bit unnatural considering the lightning of the cliff on the left side. It is also evident that there is chromatic aberration on some trees, while the mountain on the right leaves me with the impression that it might have been painted. I think most of these issues can be fixed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A version taken straight from the RAW file can be seen here File:Golden Gate YNP2.jpg, with only exposure and contrast adjusted, white-balanced for daylight but no saturation or vibrance adjustments. NR is less and there is a touch less saturation that reflects the native RAW image (both saturation and vibrance are at 0): the image is a few years old and camera and lens are retired due to noise and a tendency to CA. For color, note that this is at 2200m altitude so there is little or no haze, and that Yellowstone and Golden Gate Canyon are so named for a reason, the rhyolite is startlingly yellow in places. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The other version has still to much noise reduction applied. I suppose you upload a version without any noise reduction at all. I don't think noise reduction is really necessary in this case. --Code (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. IMO minor technical problems. Sharpness could be better. May be better if reprocessed from the RAW file.--XRay talk 05:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support A little distorted and unsharp near the corners, but otherwise perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:HEK 293.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 20:42:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Immunofluorescent Human Embryonic Kidney 293 cells


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anfiteatro, Valle de la Luna, San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 149.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 19:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of "the Amfitheater", a rock formation in Valle de la Luna (in Spanish "Moon Valley"), Atacama Desert, Chile.

File:Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories (1922), Frontispiece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 11:26:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frontispiece to Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Maud and Miska Petersham - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice. I grew up reading these books. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you may have overdone the contrast and saturation boost compared to the original scan (which I presume is your own scan). The fine detail in the dot pattens on bold colours is smudged. Neither the scanned TIFF nor this JPG have any colour profile defined, which I think is essential for art reproductions. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Colin: Remember that I own the original: I adjusted it to match the original, after telling the scanner not to make any automatic adjustments. The scan doesn't accurately reflect the orignal; I told it not to try to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • The dots making up the colour pattern seem to have merged or become less distinct particular where the colour is strong. I agree your scan isn't a reference in itself but then neither is your monitor unless you have a pro-grade calibrated monitor, calibrated scanner, a colour checker chart, and reference lighting levels for viewing your monitor image / book. Clearly as amateurs we can't afford all that. Have you considered asking WMF for a grant to purchase a display calibrator and chart -- considering the amount of scanning/restoration you do. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
        • From my experience, scans often can make things look more distinct, even when they aren't in the original. Also, of course, some of the restoration involved fixing printing errors, which may, in a few cases, include bits where the dots were more visible because one of the colours was left out. For example, the green balloons at the far right, more-or-less vertically centered had some issues with that in the original, and the third flag from the left (counting the half-flag on the far left) had the reds a bit splattered. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sage pollen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 01:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scanning electron microscopy image of sage pollen
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - That's certainly a valid point of view, although I think the information on scale is helpful. But it's up to Judyta Dulnik. Judyta, if you're reading, do you have an opinion about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Well, as Daniel Case said all the information can be put in description, but this is how I've been taking pictures with SEM I'm working on and, to be honest, it haven't crossed my mind to put it elsewhere. To me it doesn't disrupt the picture, but I might be a little biased. --Judyta Dulnik (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Judyta, thanks for your response. I don't think it disrupts the picture, although I don't know what "3kv" or "WD(...)" mean, so you might explain anything non-obvious in your file description. Also, if you'd like to vote on whether to feature your photo, feel free. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In any case, I think it's a good thing to include a scale bar. I'd crop a little bit at the bottom, though, to have the text vertically centred. And yes, I'd appreciate an explanation of "3kv" etc. in the file description as well. --El Grafo (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I've myself only worked a little with TEMs and not SEMs and even that was really long time ago. So I'm not much of a specialist on that. But kV should refer to the amount of energy used. Electron microscopes have an electron emitter (called cathode or filament), that is electrically heated, so that it would bounce off electrons (they replace photons, that are captured by "normal" cameras). For a bigger magnification you need more energy. This WD11mm should refer to the fact that Working Distance is 11 mm. It is sort like what a focal length is in optical systems. I have no idea what that SS40 is.
For me this black line with that info is so common, that I kinda like it to be present. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I've just added some description, very brief though, since it would be too much explaining to people who are not familiar with this subject. I believe these details might be interesting for those working with SEM and they simply don't need more desciption.--Judyta Dulnik (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Niels Gade by Georg Weinhold.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 22:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

portrait of Niels Wilhelm Gade

File:Emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator), Le Courégant, Brittany, France (19651212169).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 20:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Frank Vassen - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Moon rabbit 365 -- Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is one of the better insect heads I've seen on this page for some time, and the head is better than in any of the FPs in its category. However, other parts of the dragonfly are not as focused. Of the existing FPs in category Anax imperator, this one is by far the clearest in depicting the entire dorsal side of the dragonfly. This is the 2nd-clearest in depicting the insect. This one is the least clear but shows the dragonfly emerging from the water over the leaf of a water plant, a special moment. This photo is certainly a great capture. Should it be featured? Maybe, primarily for the head and thorax. For now at least, I'm not going to make up my mind, but perhaps these links will be of use to others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose abdomen is blurred. Charles (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charles, but really I don't feel the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Consumer Reports - Zojirushi coffeemaker.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 16:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zojirushi coffeemaker
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Consumer Reports - uploaded by User:Bluerasberry - nominated by Bluerasberry -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I work for Consumer Reports, which is an organization that does product testing on household consumer products. My organization puts photos like these in its magazine and website along with reviews of the products. I am curious about Commons' reviewers opinions of these kinds of photos. I will share whatever comments or critiques anyone has with the photography department here. -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have some complaints, please see notes. --Hubertl 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tilt --The Photographer (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Hubertl's complaints and The Photographer's note. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the notes Hubertl and The Photographer made, the background not exposed to white. When used in print or on the web the subject will be placed on a pure white background. This can be achieved in studio, with arrangement of flash, appropriately distanced white background, and careful choice of surface (plus a little help from Photoshop) or it can be done crudely by simply cutting the subject out from whatever background it has. The latter is fine for small web use or thumbnails in a magazine like Consumer Reports. But I think at FP we are more looking for the sort of careful product shot one might expect the manufacturer to take for a full-page magazine advert (e.g. this on-black image). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, plus it looks very noisy, like sharpened noise. Unacceptable on a studio shot, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing any significant noise, certainly not "very noisy", and nothing to worry about for any publication usage. The problem really, in terms of professional publication, is that this is sort of unfinished -- it requires significant Photoshopping to be usable. However, Bluerasberry, Commons lacks good quality photos of utilitarian objects like these. Most amateur shots are a lot lot worse. So if Consumer Reports is willing to donate part of its archive of photos then that would be great. I would think that especially for models no longer in the shops, the commercial value of any photo would be extremely low, and it might as well get used via Commons than sit on some hard disc somewhere. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hm. I see sharpened noise speckles all over the frame. On the plastic parts, I’d have accounted this to the surface design, but it’s on the shiny metal parts as well. --Kreuzschnabel 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Well you can see all sorts of things with a magnifying glass. Look closely enough and you'll see the RGB dots on your LCD :-). I really think this is at the level of irrelevance, and noting that it is a negative point ("very noisy") is I think harmful as it just makes (a) professional photographers despair that we are just pixel-peeping and (b) nominators want to downsize to avoid such issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Zojirushi coffeemaker

The Photographer Thanks for the fix. You made it a nicer and more useful picture, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this improvement makes the image much more useful, with distracting imperfections. However, the grey background and the very utilitarian design of this particular coffee-maker mean I don't think this is good enough for FP. It is sad we have so few domestic appliances at FP, and I mention for comparison my own File:Electric steam iron.jpg which is better on-white and a more attractive product. Alternatively is the on-black advertising product shot such as File:Sony A77 II.jpg. I suggest that a colourful (bright red?) and more retro design could have the visual appeal for FP, if carefully shot and lit. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I might not understand the purpose of featured pictures. Is it more desirable to depict something as it is commonly experienced, or is this more a system for identifying what is artistically extraordinary? I choose this coffeemaker because it seemed as neutral and mundane as a coffeemaker of this sort might be.
I saw that iron photo years ago when you submitted it and used it as an argument for Consumer Reports to share more product photos. Thanks for sharing - I might not have gotten these photos were it not for that iron. I only now got permission for this one and a few others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Or simply this object is used --The Photographer (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The Photographer It is a new product. All products here go to the photo studio before being tested. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I respect Colin's points but think this clean picture of a consumer product is fine to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan; I am satisfied with this photo and find it as striking as anything you'd find in a magazine. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Per Bluerasberry's question about what criteria are used to judge whether a picture should be featured: We had a discussion about that recently. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 18#Change the number of votes to feature a picture?, starting with my comment below the "-1" votes for the "New proposal". But that doesn't cover everything. Your first reference should be Commons:Image guidelines: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a 'wow factor' and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient 'wow factor' and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." You'll see a series of technical criteria and a few compositional guidelines, but if they are met, the next question is the "wow factor", and that's not subject to objective measurements. You'll see from the discussion I linked that different reviewers give greater or lesser weight to encyclopedic and general educational value. Some of us think that artistic value is paramount in whether a photo has wow, while others aren't even willing to vote for a photo they think is of no educational value. I won't be surprised if this photo isn't featured because the motif doesn't wow many people, and that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I like the streamlined character of the design and the clarity of the photo, so I'm fine with featuring it, but the point is very arguable. However, there have certainly been examples of otherwise not very interesting motifs that have been photographed so well that the photo has been featured; for example, XRay's photo of Weeze Airport looks set to be the next, but it certainly won't be the first. Another example is that we featured a photo of the Parkhotel in Pörtschach by Johann Jaritz even though some of us consider it an eyesore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The nomination might have succeeded if this alt were proposed rather than one with clear flaws. Personally, I think our Commons:Image guidelines are weak and too long. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see people's points of view if a discussion is taken up at the talk page for the guidelines on possible changes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen, Naturschutzgebiet Borkenberge -- 2016 -- 2278.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 05:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Step in a staircase in nature reserve “Borkenberge”, Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - I enjoy moving my eye around this composition and it's interesting to look at, so to me that's enough of a reason to support it. And I'd like to salute you in these two nominations for trying something different! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's just "no try no chance". I like the image and it's other than others. It's another view. --XRay talk 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {o} A pity ! This is exactly one of my kinds of FP, but it is unsharp at full size !--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't see great problems with sharpness. I've tried to improve the sharpness (and uploaded the new image). --XRay talk 04:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beyond any sharpness issue, I just don't see this as special/impressive enough for FP. INeverCry 19:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per INC, sorry. If only the flowers would form a regular hexagon or something like that. --Kreuzschnabel 08:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Jebulon's oppose, except I don't see any sharpness issues either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I changed my mind, sharpness is acceptable. Excellent subject.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sumida desupre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 03:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sumida ward, Tokyo, Japan
Ikan Kekek What do you mean by, "there's nothing special about the crops"? I want to see what you are seeing but do not follow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm saying that I don't see convincing reasons for where the margins of the picture frame are. Does that make sense? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per M. Kekek. KennyOMG (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is pretty good, but I don't like the smog or the areas that are in shadow. Overall I'm just not wowed. INeverCry 19:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I sure do like it. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A nice cityscape but too colorless, smog and white buildings notwithstanding. Seems overexposed to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: Did you mean for this to be a support? It sounds like an oppose rationale. INeverCry 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks ... you were correct. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Couillet - chevalements de la mine du Pêchon - 7.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2016 at 13:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winding tower of the former coal mine named “Pêchon”.
  • CCW=counterclockwise. CA=chromatic aberration (incorrect color or, usually, really a much more subtly incorrect shade, hue, what have you). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • the tilt is easy to correct. Indeed the sun is at top-left. But I have no experience for correction CA. --H2O(talk) 12:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg strong oppose Per 6 supports × 0 opposes last month. This is game-playing, Arion. We don't keep nominating till we get the result we like. Please accept lack of support == not featured. -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is there a rule for/against this? In my eyes it’s just bad behaviour – renominate it until it passes, and I had a strong impulse to oppose just for principle, which is a pity because the image is fine and does not deserve this. We ought to discuss about this (no re-nomination within 3 months or so). --Kreuzschnabel 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't have thought that Arion is playing games... It was one vote away from a pass and had no opposes last time. Perhaps he genuinely thought that perhaps it just needed more eyes on it? If it was 6 supports and 3 opposes, it would be a different story. If it's really so far away from passing, why didn't more people oppose it last time? You don't need to hate an image to oppose it, you simply need to disagree that it's FP-worthy. I think any discussion generated by this nomination should be more about why we don't oppose images more often, rather than whether it's acceptable to renominate an image where it was just a single vote away from passing last time. I know people are not very keen to oppose other people's photos, but for FPC to be a successful project, we need to be just as likely to oppose as support. Diliff (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I wasn't suggesting that Arion was doing this in bad faith but the effect is just gaming the system. Yes the problem is that "wow" is a requirement for FP and most people vote "oppose" on "wow" by simply not voting at all. Thus lack of enthusiasm for a picture is an implicit "no wow" vote by the community. I've complained about lack of explicit opposes many times, and the culture hasn't changed, so we have to live with a lot of timid reviewers who don't want to upset anyone (or their chances on their own nominations :-). So I think we should respect that this is how the community votes, and unless the image is altered/improved then it shouldn't really be proposed again. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So, Kreuzschnabel, Diliff, are you going to vote on this? FWIW, I feel this is a insufficient wow image, separate from my views on renominating. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Take a cup of tea and relax Face-smile.svg--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Putting my vote where my mouth is. It's nice enough, but it's not strong enough to meet our standards IMO. Diliff (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Procedural oppose I believe I supported this last time, but I agree with Colin that it is too soon to try again unless there was some significant edit that had been made. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case. I don’t think this is good practice which should be rewarded by success. --Kreuzschnabel 05:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. On reflection, since the argument that a photo that wasn't approved for a feature a month ago shouldn't be eligible for reconsideration yet is one I agree with, I can't support this photo again without being hypocritical. In the meantime, I think it is important to have a clear rule on how soon after an unsuccessful nomination the same picture can be renominated, with special allowances perhaps being made for edits that were done to the picture in response to criticism (of which, unfortunately, there was none in this case). Let's have that discussion on the talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Thread started on talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2016 at 08:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Rome)
  • Besides that the colors are just perfect, and if you want to be credible put the photos that prove the contrary, is very curious (I wonder why) that Benh (and some others) come out on my nominations always and just see to vote in opposition, I wonder why... --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thought you could query Google yourself but here you go. - Benh
With all due respect, Benh, but I kicked the FPX now. You have had your vote and you used it. Use FXP, when something is obviously and unrepairable against the guidelines. --Hubertl 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not necessary - and against the guidelines too - to be dismissive. To anyone here! --Hubertl 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
      • He goes paranoiac, makes allegations on my voting pattern (my commentary is justified and with a neutral tone) and I'm dismissive... Hmmm. Double check before giving a lesson. Back to photo, yes, the off balance is quite a huge mistake IMO. Colour accuracy is also a criteria, but it seems under rated because it's not as obvious as, say, sharpness to spot out. U r right on the FPX, mine wasn't valid, as other support votes were provided. My mistake. - Benh (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
        • No Benh, the paranoid is someone who connects only to give negative votes to the same people .....need to be balanced in life. You're not far. You gave me a positive vote? Show me that please. Returning to the photo, this makes you feel you not me. The colors are OK --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Thu 19 May → Tue 24 May
Fri 20 May → Wed 25 May
Sat 21 May → Thu 26 May
Sun 22 May → Fri 27 May
Mon 23 May → Sat 28 May
Tue 24 May → Sun 29 May

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

Sun 15 May → Tue 24 May
Mon 16 May → Wed 25 May
Tue 17 May → Thu 26 May
Wed 18 May → Fri 27 May
Thu 19 May → Sat 28 May
Fri 20 May → Sun 29 May
Sat 21 May → Mon 30 May
Sun 22 May → Tue 31 May
Mon 23 May → Wed 01 Jun
Tue 24 May → Thu 02 Jun

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below (except to add categories on the file page, because need a non-bot user to do it). However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2016), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2016.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
Read in another language