Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


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

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

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

Formal thingsEdit


Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of Thirds" is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Above all, be politeEdit

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

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

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

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

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

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Abyaneh, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 13-15 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 09:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Newport Harbor Yacht Moorings by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 08:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info As we are going to try and be more inviting to Drones, I offer this photo taken with a DJI Phantom 3 Pro, created by -- WPPilot (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WPPilot (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition looks too flat, and the lighting is also not very interesting. Too much empty sky as well. -- King of ♠ 09:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the horizon needs to be straightened, too --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Japanese tit in Suita, Osaka, November 2016 - 609.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 04:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mary Cassatt - The Child's Bath - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 03:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern great egret in flightEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 00:30:34 (UTC)

  •   Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great documentation, and yet it also reminds me of the great classic Japanese paintings of yesteryear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 09:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Yann (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Avlonari church Agios Demetrios chandelier Euboea Greece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 23:20:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support An oil lamp chandelier in the 11th-c.greek orthodox church Agios Dimitrios near Avlonari, Euboea island, Greece. -- Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me the subject is not very remarkable, nor is the composition. -- King of ♠ 09:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Couple passes houseboat canals Amsterdam 2016-09-13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 22:32:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Encouraged by the discussion at of this shared taxi FPC regarding looking around and documenting something which is common in one location, but maybe extraordinary in another, I nominate this picture showing a couple having what appears to be some leisure time cruising in their boat on the canals of Amsterdam while passing a houseboat. A quite typical scene in Amsterdam, but maybe not so many other places. Lets see what happens.... Not my usual type of nomination. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Faces arent so sharp, but i like the view. --Mile (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Focus is on the boat about 1/3 of the way in, not their faces. -- King of ♠ 09:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is too busy for a FP. Yann (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Sea lion on the beach in La Jolla (70367).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 22:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Otariidae (Eared seals)
  •   Info Created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by W.carter.
    Rhododendrites has brought back a marvelous series of photos of sea lions from a trip to San Diego, you may have seen some of them at QIC. This is not the usual animal photo to identify a species by counting every hair on the creature. Here the sea lion is part of a composition, leisurely rolling its beautiful curvy body in the clear waves. For me it brings to mind the iconic beach scene in From Here to Eternity only this is another kind of love; the love for nature. -- cart-Talk 22:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 22:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose some way from FP for me. Charles (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Animal tends to get lost in all that crashing water. I did suggest a crop, but I'm not sure the resulting image would be large enough to qualify. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, but that crop would eliminate the great pattern made by the waves. To me this pic is about both the sea and the animal as they interact. --cart-Talk 09:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 Pałac w Łomnicy 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 21:11:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kiyomizu-dera, Kyoto, November 2016 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 10:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Unfortunately I can't, Ikan. There were some ugly some wooden barriers that I had to crop. It was really, really crowded but I tried to take pictures from many different angles (cf. my other uploads). Imo this is the best photo I can offer for this kind of motif (main hall plus red trees at daylight). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood, and thanks for your response. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a pity the crowds can't be avoided but the rest of the photo is great. --cart-Talk 11:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice colours. Charles (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great colors, great composition but unfortunately it loses it for me in the processing. Sky looks sort of unnatural (particularly that shade of blue) and the landscape at left looks distinctly waxy. Neither might be completely avoidable but I'd have tried harder to address them. Daniel Case (talk)
  •   Weak support I know it's very hard to avoid well but too many tourists on the stage... and think Daniel is right, the sky is a bit purplish as Japanese sky. P.S. I think this angle is almost the best angle for this structure :) --Laitche (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think there is something wrong with the processing, with what I see it can be a too big decrease of the highlights (that lead to a loss of color brightness) and then a too big increase of the saturation to to compensate. I would be happy to have the RAW file and to make an attempt. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:SpaceShipOne Takeoff photo D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 08:28:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport
  •   Info created by -- WPPilot (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WPPilot (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Can you explain the strange colors? Looks posterized to me, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't understand, looking at the first version of this photo you have a nice level pic with normal coloration (ok, it's too dark and the compo is not FP, but still) and then you replace it with a tilted version (taken a sek or so later/earlier, it's a different photo) and bring the saturation stick to full throttle, turning it into some 60s boy-room poster. --cart-Talk 11:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with opposition, this isnt possible to bring-up to FP. WPPilot but i would revert it to 1st image. --Mile (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because unsharp, strange colors and tilted. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Bạc Liêu windpower farm.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 05:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info Offshore windpower farm in Vietnam; photo created, uploaded and nominated by -- - [Tycho] talk 05:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- - [Tycho] talk 05:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great colors, but the composition just looks unbalanced to me. Both sides are heavy with nothing in the middle. -- King of ♠ 11:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 65-67 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2016 at 19:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) composite.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2016 at 18:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info all by Charlesjsharp We observed the adults in a family of proboscis monkeys jumping between these two trees. They went round and round, repeating the jump. Over a period of 15 minutes, the adults encouraged the youngsters to make the jump. This young male was one of the last to commit (so I was ready for him). No monkeys were injured in the making of this composite. -- Charles (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral   Support Nice action image, however, sky is noise. --The Photographer 18:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Great image, but noise. -- King of ♠ 18:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done noise reduced. Charles (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support In-motion shot. --Mile (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice shot/series. --cart-Talk 19:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Terrific action sequence, and a valuable depiction. Compositionally, I'm reminded of the Futurists, who loved to show people and things in motion, rarely still. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support WOOOOoooooooooowwwwww ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. Nicely done. —Bruce1eetalk 07:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --C messier (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I'd prefer if you didn't reduce the noise so much on the monkeys, to appear sharper. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Phimeanakas, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2016 at 13:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It looks better now but I do still like the landscape version better. Just a matter of taste, I guess. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I also have feeling panorama might be much better. --Mile (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel may be right - still very impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 20:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:FS E 444 084 Cervo - Andora.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 23:23:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info A Thello Eurocity hauled by a Trenitalia class 444R. This very scenic section of the Genoa–Ventimiglia line was shut down four days later (replaced by a new line in the mountains).
  •   Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite picturesque, and the back story makes this an instance of salvage photography (I don't know if the term is used, but "salvage anthropology" is a study of something that's about to disappear). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 08:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support good spot --Mile (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 11:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 11:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Always good for us to have a picture of something like this while it's there. Even better when it's clearly featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel Case. Congrats.--Jebulon (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Orto Botanico di Napoli Calliandra tweedii.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 21:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'd love to see some remark from you on what you believe makes this an FP, but for the time being, I am unfortunately going to oppose. The red flower is pretty, sure, but what about the rest of the picture? The lighting doesn't seem special to me, and what do the unsharp leaves in the foreground add to the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your question Ikan. I simply like the picture and the exotic flower and believe others will judge if it is a FP. In regard to the "unsharp leaves" I think and know that in photography unsharp foreground and background can help to emphasize the main object. Than the result is only matter of taste and composition. Btw the lighting of this picture is not too bad imo, I believe it is rather intriguing. Cheers-- 11:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply, and I understand your reasoning. Yes, the flower itself is well lit. But the brightest part of the picture is probably a blurry part of a branch and leaves below it. We'll see what others think, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. The color is a little washed out and the composition way too cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 17:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose The pic is more about the sunsetrise than the ship. The composition looks sort of awkward, the ship's reflection is cut (perhaps an upright or square format would have been better) and the buildings have unfortunately ended up like two giant containers stored on deck. I know how hard it is to get a "clean" shot of a ship in port so I'm truly sorry for coming down like this on this pic.--cart-Talk 10:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Small correction: It's a sunrise. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
My bad, sorry.   Corrected. --cart-Talk 15:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 E-papieros mod 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 16:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: What you see on the gold case, this is not the noise but the texture of anodized aluminum. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I think product photos need to be really special to be FPs. It's a very hard challenge to wow me with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obviously painstakingly set up, but Ikan is right. Daniel Case (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, sorry, had there been say a backlit vapour puff (or whatever you get out of these things) it would have been something else. --cart-Talk 10:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Lago Covel (1,841 m).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 06:40:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kyoto Station November 2016 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 05:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very Le Cinquième Élément. We are really enjoying your trip to Japan and it seems like it might bag you some stars too. :) --cart-Talk 09:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The yellow thing is offputting... Charles (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I didn't think of that as a possible issue. To me, it provides a good starting point for the photo and a good counterpoint to the large open area and staircase in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could you fix the CA on the far right? -- King of ♠ 15:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the hint - I'd take care of that myself.... but since I'm currently away from the computer which I'm doing my image processing with for another couple of days, could please anyone else give it a shot? Thanks a lot! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] The two versions look absolutely identical to me when I toggle between them, and yes, I did clear my cache. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That's odd. There's a noticeable difference (far right, top) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Плоская Башня Псковского Кремля.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 18:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info created by Sachkv - uploaded by Sachkv - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Beautiful, but I think it needs perspective correction. Everything to the left of the turret seems to lean left, and some of the leaning is very pronounced. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info My attempt to fix perspective distortion. Please revert, if it's not ok. --Ivar (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I   Support this version. A little unsharpness on the left side in no way cancels out the beauty of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Will have to oppose if distortion cannot be corrected. Charles (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Think distortion is gone, but i wouldnt compare is to this old tower, maybe to white church inside, where windows seem fine. Some strange stuff is inside the lake.--Mile (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment It looks like oversharpened. There are halos from sharpening around the building. --XRay talk 11:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Saw similar, but more on 200 %. Problem: again not in sRGB color - Sachkv, JukoFF !? --Mile (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I am not the author of photos. According to this answer to your comments I can not. JukoFF (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overdone is several aspects IMO (distortion, contrast, sharpness, colors). A typical candidate for a prize in WLM, but not for FP, as stated in our guidelines.--Jebulon (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Вид на Исторический музей в сторону Красной площади.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 18:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by Oleg zeppelin - uploaded by Oleg zeppelin - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Too bad Krismas tree on left is croped, but i havent see Moscow in this view. Very good. --Mile (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - The streets are grainy, and otherwise, I completely agree with Mile. The contrast of the color in the foreground and drab background is striking, appealing and festive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Москва as a happy little toy-land, that has to be a first, like being back in the days of The Nutcracker Great mood and colors. --cart-Talk 10:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment lots to like, but why choose such a cloudy day? Charles (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Charles if i could order the weather for Advent here, it would look like this. --Mile (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Cayambe Equator monument 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 18:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Quitsato Sundial is exactly positioned on the equator line near the town of Cayambe in Ecuador. The equator is the narrow dark line that runs through the base of the cylinder. The northern hemisphere is at the left, the southern one at the right side of the line (see image annotations). A student is seen giving explanations to a tourist.
The equator line near the town of Cayambe was drawn by members of the Ecuadorian army after several months of replicated measurements. I checked it - positively - with my personal GPS receiver :-)
There are a number of other equator lines drawn in Ecuador - such as here and here - which, however, are known to be misplaced for several hundreds of meters at least (also checked by myself).
  •   Support -- Cayambe (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - Definitely a good VI/QI, but not a compelling view or composition for FP, in my opinion. Maybe if the sky were more interesting, that might be enough for me to support, though I'd have to see it and decide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice and interesting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For sure good and educational but it lacks that little extra for a FP. Some sort of combo of these (1 & 2) would wow me more. --cart-Talk 10:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Top crop is too tight. -- King of ♠ 15:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, good quality but no wow. --Karelj (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Self-winding wristwatch (transparent backside).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 08:16:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Self-winding wristwatch with transparent backside. Clock is not new, but still very nice shot. My work. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - No vote from me yet, but what does this mean? "weigth is rotating at hand movement thus giving clock energy". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Its automatic clock. If you dont move, weight isnt getting momentum, hence no energy filling. --Mile (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In other word, you mean "The watch's weight gains energy whenever the user moves their wrist, enabling the watch to self-wind". Isn't that right? By the way, as a matter of English-language terminology, if you can wear it on your wrist or in your pocket, it's a watch. Clocks are bigger than watches, although the basic mechanism is the same. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Something like that. It also has some autonomy if you wear it some time, that time spring is "full". --Mile (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I will edit your caption, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice work. (the clock and the photo...) --smial 10:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo! The problem with self-winding watches is that you also need this. :) Also, thanks for the copyediting Ikan --cart-Talk 12:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I would have expected the inside mechanism to be darker and more contrast but possibly the glass back is reflecting some glare that reduces the contrast. I wonder if a polarising filter would have helped. I'd have preferred if the lugs on the top left were not cropped out. -- Colin (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done --Mile (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, smooth tones. Looks like it was shot for an ad. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I have spent some time looking at this photo, and this is such a magnified closeup that I wonder whether part of what looks like noise in the far side of the watch's dial is actually reflections in the natural bubbles in the glass. Either way, I just can't argue with that degree of closeup. How did you do it? Valuable, too (nominate for VI). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Ikan The magnified closeup is achived by using a macro lens, in this case "OLYMPUS M.60mm F2.8 Macro". A macro lens is defined as one that renders an image onto the sensor that is at least as large as the subject is in reality. Typically the subject has to be very close to the lens, at the minimum focus distance of the lens, in order to achieve that degree of magnification. [Here the watch is larger than the sensor so it won't be a 1:1 macro]. The photosites in a crop sensor (such as APS-C or Micro-four-thirds) are usually much much more densly packed than in a full-frame sensor, which means that the resulting JPG is even more magnified than with a typical full-frame DSLR. However, the depth of focus at such close-up subject distance is tiny e.g. 1mm, so multiple images are taken and then "focus stacked" in software to select the sharp bits from each image and merge them. The focus can be changed either by rotating the focus ring on the lens, or more usually by puting the camera on a "macro focus rail" which lets one smoothly slide the camera forwards or backwards in tiny increments by rotating a knob. Everyone who buys a macro lens takes a photo of their watch. It's simply the done thing. :-) -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As Colin said, you can see lens used in bottom of EXIF. Macro lens of course. Other stuff is to put it in softbox, use one light, and see where light will be best - you move and move, not just light but reflection also. Light is very important, good handed position make it ad, as Daniel Case saw. Bottom was some black textil (softbox is all white), which i had to remove some latter, still visible at close distance. So for better, i would lift watch for some centimeters above, after what cleaning would be probably unnecessary. Colin is probably thinking on my watch. 5 eur, with 2 batteries. --Mile (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC) p.S. Will put to some "Backside Automatic" on VI. As you can see, we dont have much watch photos, only one is really FP.
  • Yeah, that's a superb photo. But this one isn't bad, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Charles: my goal was to show mechanism, not PR of producer. And since its not their inovation i think i can skip their naming. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC) p.S. Probably would do that in front shot.
    • OK. That's Ok for FP, though needed for VI I think. Charles (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Prague September 2016-38a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 00:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Panoramic view of Prague taken from the western side of River Vtlava, between bridges Jiraskuv and Palackeho. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - My reaction is that the light is not optimal but almost everything else is, or damn close. Great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The left hand side has a slight clockwise tilt, which could be fixed with some vertical control points. But it's not severe overall, and the right side is ok. Otherwise per Ikan. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Would love to see this in a early AM reflective shot with calm, smooth water. --WPPilot (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) female 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 22:59:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture. Yann (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good capture, a bit of CA on the spots on the right side otherwise excellent. I can see it is thinking: -"Hmmm, that other photographer looks tastier..." :P --cart-Talk 23:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --WPPilot (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Some of the unsharp grass in the foreground is a bit distracting, but it couldn't be helped and doesn't ruin the photo. Great capture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 10:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support One of the best animal pics here in a long time. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 08:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice capture the posing. --Laitche (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 14:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info This airport just turned 75, as reported in THIS publication: created and nominated by -- WPPilot (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WPPilot (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good lines and I like the way the street grid of the trailer park to the left of the airport almost looks like the taxiways and runways in an airport. --cart-Talk 15:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very clear for an aerial photo. What is producing the red color in the disturbed area in the lower left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support though quality could be better. -- King of ♠ 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing like a striking pattern of runways to provide wow. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Map of Hindoostan, 1788, by Rennell.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 14:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by James Rennell, uploaded by Yann and Zhuyifei1999, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Very detailed map of British India by James Rennell (see the article for details), 1788.
  •   Support This is the most detailed map of India we have, and in addition, it is an important historical document. -- Yann (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That really is a great map, and it's in good condition for its age, but I'd love to see a digital restoration. The fold just above Bombay has everything not quite lined up. I'll vote to   Support, anyway, but that's the one really unfortunate problem with the map's condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Atylotus rusticus (male) - Achillea millefolium - Valingu.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 13:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info Male horse fly on the common yarrow, all by Ivar (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Too bad you couldn't get the horsefly's entire body clear, but that's an outstanding picture of more than 1/2 of the fly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the way you got the pollen grains in the little bugger's furs or whatever. I know some fly-tyers who'd find this picture very helpful. Even if we don't have them in our streams over here, I bet a lot of trout would go for something like this if it were presented right. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Please, add insect size --The Photographer 10:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I can only guess, that body length was ca 9-12 mm, but I would have to kill him to be sure. No harm was done and he did fly away safely. --Ivar (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice image, but it's nice to have species id for FP. Any chance? Charles (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm trying... --Ivar (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      •   Done correct species name is Atylotus rusticus. --Ivar (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now. Charles (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Vieux tonneau Eubée Grèce.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 09:28:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination An old barrel. -- Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 11:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really don't know what do people find so special in this image for an FA. For me, the detail is unattractive, the colours are not outstanding and the overall composition is insufficient. Sorry but this is good enough just for a quality image in my opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree it could be perceived as a controversial nomination, and the kind of vote and opinion of Kiril Simeonovski is normal and was expected. I thank him for sharing. Let's see where this nom will go, and I hope that some people here will understand my meaning, and support. Any vote is of course welcome.--Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I see a kind of transcendent ordinariness here, somewhat like that suggested of the titular object in the William Carlos Williams poem "The Red Wheelbarrow". It would be nice if the whole barrel was in focus, but the front is, and that's all it needs to make it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as described - just an old barrel! Charles (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Sorry, I get that the colors of the wall rhyme those of the barrel, but the composition doesn't feel exceptional to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers, pardon. --Ivar (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too flare, no good contrast. --Karelj (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Disappointed, but not surprised. Thank you all !--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Taxus baccata Lviv.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 01:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info created by Mykola Swarnyk - uploaded by Mykola Swarnyk - nominated by Djadjko -- Djadjko (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Djadjko (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting isn't very good. I don't care for the berries being in shadow. lNeverCry 02:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per INC, and also because the DoF is too shallow and nothing is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea and seasonal, all Christmas-y, but the execution failed. In addition to unsharpness noted by Ikan, it also looks a little overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Atardecer en Chascomús 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 00:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created/uploaded by Pinpa82- nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing to set this apart from any other sunset. -- King of ♠ 02:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice picture, better than a run of the mill sunset picture, but still, nothing exceptional, so essentially, per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. A sunset has to have some serious magic to come in for FP... lNeverCry 09:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago September 2016-39.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2016 at 23:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Reflections of OneEleven building, Chicago downtown. The structures reflected on the facade are La Salle Street Bridge, the Reid Murdoch Building (both brown) and 121 West Kinzie Street. These two buildings are on the north side of Ricer Chicago. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice, but a bit similar to the already featured File:Chicago September 2016-37.jpg; I'm not seeing what's featurable in this image that isn't already present in the other image. -- King of ♠ 00:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 00:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Different building and very different reflections. You guys think there should be only one example of this genre of photographs as an FP? Why? Do we have only one FP of a dragonfly? Of a sunset? Of a cathedral interior? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    For me it's more than the mere genre: the light blue main building and the beige and reddish brown buildings in the reflection. -- King of ♠ 07:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    We disagree. The photos aren't that similar. And besides, are variations on a theme verboten for FP? There are several other photos of glass skyscrapers in Chicago by Alvesgaspar that probably merit FP designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    A lot of my criteria are not fixed, but on a sliding scale. Here I don't think the wow factor is among our highest, though sufficient for one feature. -- King of ♠ 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question The subject is not clear to me. Does the buildings reflected en:OneEleven or just that glass? I think here the subject is mainly the reflections and it need to be identified. Jee 04:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Some info included above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks. Jee 11:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could you please change the name to something that actually describes what is in the pic? Right now there is a whole bunch of "Chicago September" photos, a very broad concept, at least name the building in the file title. --cart-Talk 11:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info @W.carter: & @Daniel Case:: I have decided long ago not to give detailed descriptive names to the pictures I upload. Two reasons: first, the effort would be inconsistent with the normal practise in Commons, where any language can be used in the file names and no standards exist; second, for someone looking for something the effective way of finding what's needed is searching through categories, not file names. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Not exactly sure what "normal practice" you are referring to since Commons:File naming (links to this are at the top of the FPC page) says: Names should be: - descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray. The category system is all very well for folks who are familiar with it, but for the ordinary person (not a community member) the most common way of finding pics is to use the search box. Even if the categories show up there, those who are not familiar with them chose the images that appear based on their file name. Question is: Are you organizing your pics just for the community or for anyone looking? There have been several lively discussions at QIC about proper file names and the majority of posts speak for following the guidelines. Yes, language barriers do exist, but a good file name in any language is better than a bad one. Especially with the new browsers that translate between languages. I'm not asking you to change all your files' names, but since FPs are supposed to be the best, I think we should follow the guidelines for these pics at least. cart-Talk 11:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I do comply with the rules in Commons:File naming, at least at a minimal level: the place where the photo was taken (which is also its subject) is referred to, as well as the date. But I won't go any further, with detailed titles like "Reflections on OneEleven Building in Chicago September 2016 - nn". In what FP and QI are concerned, the searching work is much facilitated by the extra categorization given by the FP and QI galleries. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Rethorical question, no need to respond! :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • A response might be appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support on changing the filename per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have already explained the logic behind my naming convention and this is not the place to engage in a theoretical discussion on the subject. Whether the reviewers consider this picture has the merit to become a FP or they do not. Of course, anybody is free to change the names of the existing FP or of any picture in Commons, for that matter. But I'm not going to do it as a requirement for promotion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Suit yourself, but it means that I will try to remember not to nominate any photo of yours with an unclear name. You see that it is losing you support in this thread. I won't change my vote, but I think that cart and the others have a point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  Neutral after reading Alvesgaspar's response. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Top of high voltage power line pole, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2016 at 20:30:37 (UTC)

  •   Info A set of two photos of the top of a pole for high voltage power lines as seen from the east and west side. They are not shot from exactly matching positions, because when I took the photos I wasn't thinking of a set and just shot away. It was only when I went through the pics at home and couldn't decide which side to choose that I went for the set option instead. Thoughts on this are of course welcome since I've never done a set before. All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support They complement each other very well. -- King of ♠ 00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Simple composition, but nonetheless good, and you could have hardly done better at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Idea is good, just to join them together into one "station". I would put two more shot of wires and sticth, even wouldnt bother too much, just two photos needed, one station, one wires, then rotate (mirror) station for other side. Now we have 2 seperate shots, but since people can easily rotate pics... But option is. --Mile (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, but this time the pics stay as they are. Per previous discussions and my own opinion, mirrored images have no place in FPC. Even if they had, any advanced outdoor photography will have to wait until spring. With winter here we have only a couple of hours of good light each week, it's freezing (difficult to handle the camera with gloves as I'm no AWeith) and as of this morning everything is iced over again with more snow coming. cart-Talk 10:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Try cycling gloves, it work better than without. --Mile (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Stopića Pećina2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2016 at 19:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Ok. I'll   Support it and hope for the best, maybe someone else will at least fix this jpeg. --cart-Talk 11:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural#Serbia

File:A bad sales day.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2016 at 17:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Let me see if I can remove it --The Photographer 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to include more and not crop out part of the bags. I understand cart's point about them being part of the street scene and serving as a counterweight, if you want that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I simply removed it because regrettablythe raw file was in a Beria hard drive that stopped working recently. Please, let me know if it is better or need rollback, thanks --The Photographer 23:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Better for me, not sure about others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Maracaibo was one of first colonies in S. America. Good to see some from there, otherwise, how you always get so much noise (like first version) ? --Mile (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@PetarM: I find this amount of noise in a image taken at ISO 100 unacceptable, and it is really is how my old D300 can genuinely be expected to perform and I've half a mind to sell it someday in mercadolibre. I really like the way the D300 handles, but the actual end results are, frankly, disappointing. I tend to accept that, but also I will say that this camera has a lot of other features and capabilities that can not be provided by any other camera on the price range so full of benefits that this ISO 100 noise is a very very small problem. If you look at the histogram of everything is at the bottom half of the histogram. While this isn't underexposed and even when well exposed the D300 can show noise in shadow areas. I have compared this camera to other D300s and my conclusion is that there is a problem. My shoots are raws and admittedly, the D300 is always a bit muddy... and at higher ISO's a bit smudgy. --The Photographer 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Another great documentary pic. I'm not bothered by the bags, they are part of the street life and sort of counter-weights that side of the photo. --cart-Talk 21:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm mystified as to why this should be FP. Charles (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't let yourself be carried by the river (votes), my recommendation is, if you do not feel that this image should be featured on the first impression, there is no simply reason, you could vote negative using "no wow". --The Photographer 23:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think you've found your "niche" as we say, namely street photography and urban decay. This gentleman's face and posture is perfect. This area of photography takes a photographer with courage and a lot of heart. I hope you get the equipment you need thru the crowd-funding or on your own. Street photography focusing on people is so full of possibilities. More people!   lNeverCry 01:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Urban shot. --Mile (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow. Charles (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    With street photography the wow factor can sometimes be replaced with how much power the image has to make you think or feel a certain way; a certain feeling of empathy and sympathy. If this doesn't do that for you, than I understand completely, and I respect your decision to oppose. lNeverCry 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. I actually think that the so called "wow-factor" is a rather poor expression since it doesn't cover all the emotions a pic can bring out. I tend to think -Could this photo belong in a National Geographic or Time Magazine article? If so, it should be a FP, it's a photo that makes you look twice or even three times. cart-Talk 15:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It all depends - up to a viewer. Neither NG shots are so good, i suppose some half would be out of FP. Or look at most expensive photographs - i would not dare to nominate some 70-80%. Macro shooter and urban have different world, not much in common. So if I see NG and Time fire photographers and use free Wiki i wont be surprised. --Mile (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INC and cart's comments on Charles's oppose. I would add that while the image of the man alone would be enough for me to support, putting him in the context of his environment and that striking diagonal perspective line ups the wow for me. Not only does it increase the aesthetic attraction, it dramatizes the man's situation, that he is at odds with the order of the world he is in. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment from both an aesthetic and technical perspective top right corner is not so nice. Charles (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a man on the street, I doesn't see any encyclopedic interest there, sorry. Jiel (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Human beings and how they live in and respond to their environment is of the utmost encyclopedic interest I would think. lNeverCry 07:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  Comment The man's face is not in focus. If this type of human interest image has aspirations then it should be technically spot on. Better now that garbage has gone. Charles (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: The photo is static too, so I certainly agree with your point about sharpness/quality. lNeverCry 15:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, not my taste, and a bit unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bergedorf Friedhof CampanileK2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2016 at 21:40:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eretria Cypress Acropolis Euboea Greece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2016 at 23:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A cypress growing free in the ancient greek wall of the Acropolis of Eretria, Euboea, Greece. -- Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - The stuff of poetry. But what are the dark lines on the right side of the sky? That's unusual to see, at least for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow here for me. lNeverCry 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Composition is not the best, but lighting is excellent. -- King of ♠ 01:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per King of Hearts -- Zcebeci (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition isn't working for me, I'm afraid. The tree overlapping the mountain just seems awkward. -- Colin (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • "Awkward"?--Jebulon (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It feels like a picture of the mountain with a tree in the way. I want to move to the side to see the mountain! Perhaps if taken from a lower angle, to the side, we'd have a composition with the tree, the mountain, the sky and less of the grass and shrubs nearby. -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks. A step leeeeeeeeft and ... adios ! (a cliff)--Jebulon (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per King. Captures the harshness of the Greek landscape in the cooler seasons. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same as above -- Jiel (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Стадо овци со ридот Костомар во позадина 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2016 at 23:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because per opposes. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Plastic polar bear with LED lights.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2016 at 22:45:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
  •   Info Right now, Sweden is filled with all manner of things to light up the darkness for the upcoming season. I saw this little guy in the window of an auto repair shop and could not resist the wild idea of shooting it. So I brought out my new small bendable/adjustable tripod and with that and my camera on the car's hood I was able to take photos stable enough to stack. :) Luckily it was dark and all good folks were home having dinner, so no one saw the crazy photographer... All by me -- cart-Talk 22:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 22:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice idea and well executed. I hope you are not going hungry to bed as it seems you have replaced dinner with photography . -- Slaunger (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Photography is a great way to get slimmer.   --cart-Talk 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - Same question as in QIC: What is that tail coming from the bear's bottom? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - And answered at QIC: It's the electric cord. Very fun picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support since I've faved it on Flickr. Interesting how you have to look at it in full-res to really be sure the lights are from within and not reflections. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Equine forelimb.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2016 at 10:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created by Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP / Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Joalpe - nominated by Joalpe -- Joalpe (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Joalpe (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Looks like gross dried-up meat. No wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Well photographed and interesting structures, mostly it makes me hungry, smoked horse meat is a delicacy in Sweden, to be savoured with horseradish in whipped cream (of all things) on sandwiches. :) --cart-Talk 14:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The picture in that article looks much more appetizing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Karelj (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose High EV, hence the VI status, but I don't see anything that makes this FP material. lNeverCry 07:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan; unlike the head it is not immediately obvious what this body part is and thus it has no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Equine head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2016 at 10:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"And how do you explain this, at Commons:Image guidelines? Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.
My feeling is that you are completely free to say that educational value is not a sufficient reason to feature photo x, y or z, but saying that educational value is irrelevant is a bridge too far" - Ikan Kekek - 2016 [1]
And being disgusting is a criteria? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
But I didn't say it has no educational value. I certainly don't feel any "wow factor", though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
"Kind of disgusting, but also not that sharp on the right side." nothing about "wow factor', Ikan. And I was only pulling your leg, relax. hehehhe -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't take offense. Even if you were joking, you had a point; it's just that if something's disgusting, the photo would have to be remarkable for it to have a wow factor for me. That reflects my biases, but so does what wows anyone, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ikan I could rationalise wow factor, as the combination of subject, composition and technique creates all the good photos; okay the subject is the subjective point depending of the cultural background, and here is seeing as bad we analyse the subject, but most of wow is not that vague. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment - I don't think I agree with you, and since I'm a musician, I'll give you an analogy: Why is it that some people love Philip Glass' music and others hate it? Why is it that some people love Verdi and hate Wagner? Why do some people love Brahms but hate the atonal music of the Second Vienna School? I admit to being in the category of people who hate musical minimalism, but that's not because I think the minimalist composers lack technique; it's because I find the incessant repetition in that style maddening. But I know musicians who are wonderful performers and interpreters, who prefer new music I consider crap to Brahms and Beethoven. It seems like an outlandish opinion to me, but I can't consider them crazy. And my feeling is, if you are only analyzing the way the composition and technique interact with the subject, you are being purely technical and not really looking for the "wow". That would be a perfectly valid form of appraisal, but I'm not sure whether that's actually what you do or just my misunderstanding of what you mean. But since this has become a meta discussion, maybe we should continue it elsewhere. You may post to my user talk page if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are you making us an offer we can't refuse?

    Seroiusly   Oppose per Ikan. --cart-Talk 12:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose High EV, hence the VI status, but I don't see anything that makes this FP material. @Rodrigo.Argenton: I'd like to see more of your own images here at FPC. We don't get to see nearly enough of your work, but what I've seen you nominate has always been great. lNeverCry 08:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry thanks. About bring more,on Monday I will start a digitalisation programme that we are expecting at least 20 FP and 200 QI in the next 4-6 months (see), so you will see more of my own work around here. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: I've endorsed the grant program. I do a lot of work at VIC too, so I'm going to get to see a lot of your work over the next half-year. :-) lNeverCry 08:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be sharper, though. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Karelj (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Eilean Donan at Dusk.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2016 at 01:44:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I have no problem believing the colors are real, I have caught far more colorful sunsets (unprocessed file). cart-Talk 11:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • cart Do you feel gradience is real ? Those spots, where no clouds are, seems like half day, not dusk. --Mile (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh yes it looks real, this is a quite common phenomenon. There are at least three layers of clouds here, when the sun sets the lowest layer of small clouds can be lit by the sun from the side, the middle thick layer will fall into shadow along with the landscape while the top layer of clouds will be high enough to be very illuminated and therefore much whiter, like it was day. This is the same thing, only there were not as many low dark clouds in that one. And in this you can see the dark low clouds and the high bright ones, imagine if the low clouds in that pic covered the sky with only small openings, then it would look the same way. I could draw a picture if you like to explain better. cart-Talk 12:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--Joalpe (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support great. Charles (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Shame it is not larger though I don't think the amount of detail would improve if it was. In addition to this "highly commended" image, George Johnson is a previous WLM winner and has had his work selected for the UK's "Landscape Photographer of the Year". He used to be active on Flickr but I can't find his account any more (just his website Based on past Flickr comments about his technique, he does do more Photoshop adjustments than most people here do, but I don't believe he would fake a sky and especially not for an image entered into a competition. This isn't just a lucky holiday photo -- the timing of the sun on the horizon and the calm waters are special. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. I find it photoshoply overdone. And there is too much useless foreground of water. I'm not fan of the horizon in the middle neither. Kidding: a good candidate for WLM, not for FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart's explanation of the white light on the clouds is consistent with my experience, and (of course) the science, and Colin's analysis is also helpful. This one stands out when scrolling through this page. Daniel Case (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Larger resolution please!!! -- -donald- (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture! --Yann (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find it photoshoply overdone also, looks a little bit fake, sorry -- Jiel (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is much good in this picture but also somethings that make me oppose for Commons purpose. The picture is like a painting, very striking atmosphere, very nice indeed. But it is rather small. When I open it as a full I see some loss in color variation and also loss in some details which are most likely caused by many kind of de-noising. It looks more like a digital art wall paper rather than a photographic document of a place. So as for Commons FP I would say the post-process is over done. --Ximonic (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Urban two-storey wooden house.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 23:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
  •   Info Absolute majority wooden houses in Russia are log hut. The house is planked with boards because it is located within the city limits. Widely used pierced work and overhead decorative elements. This house is located in Perm. Сreated by Vladimir Litvinov (architect, designer) — uploaded by Vladimir Litvinov — nominated by NiklitovNiklitov (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportNiklitov (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No offense, I hope, but I'm having trouble finding the "wow" in this diagram and would rather see a photo of the house in question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very typical russian house, cant miss those curvatures. From Užgorod to Vladivostok. --Mile (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Mile; I recall seeing plenty of these vernacular houses during my tragically-shortened trip to Perm years ago. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - What happened, if you don't mind my asking? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear Ikan Kekek! I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question: photos of the house are included (other versions). This reconstruction for architects who want to repair the house. — Niklitov (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You didn't understand the question because it was for Daniel Case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • But you know what? I get your point, anyway. This is a very high-resolution and educationally/functionally/encyclopedically useful picture.   Support after all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and useful. --Yann (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Hedeselskabet 2016-04-01-HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 21:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info When Denmark lost the Second Schleswig War to Preussian forces in 1864, it lost a considerable amount of land, see FP of the retreating forces. This led to an increased awareness of the importance of better utilizing the remaining agricultural resources in the country under the motto "Hvad udad tabtes skal indad vindes" (approximately: what was lost externally, shall be reclaimed internally). In 1866, a group of entrepreneurs in Viborg, Denmark formed a producer-controlled corporation called Hedeselskabet (the heath association). One of their objectives was to reclaim moors in central and western Jutland for farming; mostly sandy land abandoned in the 14th century as a result of the Black Plague, but in many cases good for potatoes. Hedeselskabet was thereby part of the Danish cooperative movement emerging in the period 1790-1960. Hedeselskabet still exists today as a private company with its headquarters in Viborg, and it has undergone a lot of organisational changes and it has activities in several countries within agriculture, forestation, environmental area. The current headquarters by C. F. Møller Architects were completed in 1980. I think this 58 Mpixel HDR panorama shows well an architecture, which is closely integrated with the soil, well in line with the history and current activities of the company. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great "snake-y" angle (although the left edge of the building is leaning slightly inwards) --cart-Talk 07:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes - but left side must be corrected. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment W.carter, Villy Fink Isaksen: Thanks for your reviews. You are right about the leaning LHS side. I'll have a look at it - need to re-stitch with added vertical control lines and re-develop in Lightroom. Hold on... -- Slaunger (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info King of Hearts, INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz, W.carter, Joalpe: I have restitched the panorama and uploaded a new version, where the inwards leaning left-hand side is corrected. When I was about to do the tone-mapping of the HDR panorama in Lightroom, I pressed a wrong button meaning I lost the original tone-mapping, crop, sharpening and noise reduction settings. So I have re-developed it from scratch in Lightroom, which means these setting have changed slightly, although I have tried to get it as close as possible to the original upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support now. Jee 16:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done, good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, technically a high level and the history is interesting. But in my eyes the setting and the motif itself is too little photogenic for FP. --Milseburg (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the detail on the building, but can the doubling of the grass blades in the lower left be corrected? Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I would second that request. I don't remember seeing that before, somehow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek. You are right wrt your observant review. There are parallax errors in the foreground grass in the lower left section of the image. Not easy to correct as it is three bracketed exposures and it is a handheld panorama. I live very close by, and happened to come by while bringing my camera, but not my tripod, noticing exceptional good light. I could apply a smoothing gradient to introduce some artificial feeling of shallow DOF to simply smooth out the irrelevant details of the foreground grass, but I do not want to change the image now that many have supported the current version or propose an alternative. As a matter of fact I am proud there are not worse parallax errors given there are trees in the foreground with many little twigs, and also slight wind. 9 years ago I had bigger problems. There are actually small problems on the left-most tree at the top, but I do not find it that relevant as it is really the building which has visual focus. But feel free to update your vote. I was actually reluctant to even nominate it due to these technical imperfections, but thought, hey, not all are as pedantic as myself. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Having another look, all it would do is change my vote to mild support, rather than strong support, because as a whole, this is an excellent panoramic photo of a unique building with good documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Botanical Garden, Moscow.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 12:51:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Russia
  •   Info created and uploaded by AlixSaz - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 12:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. It is actually a pretty good photo, but on a number of points, I find it is not quite FP quality. I think it could benefit from a slight crop of the sky and the water reflection - too much space is used. The view is also slightly off-centered from the main entrance. It seems a little soft in focus (maybe due to 1/50 s shutter) at the modest resolution as compared to usual architectural pictures. The whites seems a bit washed out on the columns. People in foreground are a bit distracting. One of these alone would have been OK, but in combination I have to oppose, sorry. The light, DOF and colors are nice though. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm not bothered by any of that. To me, this is a really good picture and a worthy FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Great colors. Yes, the whites are a little blown, but looking at the reflection (which is not overexposed), there isn't much detail in the columns anyways, so not much was lost. -- King of ♠ 23:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Domimant shade areas at lower part -- Zcebeci (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colors seems unnatural and overdone.--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above -- Jiel (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Public transport share taxi in Maracaibo city, Zulia, Venezuela.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 12:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 12:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great car! Seriously, nice portraits. Yann (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot. Should there be a {{Personality rights warning}} or other kind of user consent template on the file page? -- Slaunger (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
  •   Support Great facial expressions. -- King of ♠ 23:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great documentary-style photography. I could easily see this in a news story about share taxis in Maracaibo. But do put in a personality rights warning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. Please include this in Share taxi. "Por puesto"? Jee 04:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Your documentary street life photos are fantastic. Hope you don't stop doing them when you get your panorama gadget. ;) --cart-Talk 07:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish to see more of a car too, but simplistic, natural of people. --Mile (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Has so many things we usually use to justify an oppose !vote—bad crops, distracting background—but ... it's an excellent environmental portrait that for me meets the National Geographic standard. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good DOF and no informative -- Zcebeci (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maracaibo in most of the time usually reaches 50 degrees Celsius for several months,[2] however, this day was a cloudy day with a "pleasant" temperature of 40 degrees. This type of scene is common in Venezuela and most Latin American countries and it's difficult for me to recognize that it is special because it is too common. I do not know these people, however, in some way, it represents a part of the common day in Maracaibo. A shared taxi system in deplorable condition, however, with a human quality of care that seems like you're talking to a lifelong friend, they treat you with an unloved love and affection. This type of feedback is what motivates me to continue collaborating, thanks for the comments and votes positives or not, both help in different ways. --The Photographer 10:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • We should all look round and try to see our world with different eyes. What is common and everyday to us is most certainly extraordinary for someone in another country. These 'photographic reports' of ordinary life are very important. This is the way we gather and share knowledge on the Wiki-projects. cart-Talk 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not wow and nor encyclopedic for me, just two guys in a car, sorry -- Jiel (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with Jiel.--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Monasterio de Tatev, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 83-85 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 07:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info St Gregory church of the Tatev monastery during sunset, Syunik Province in southeastern Armenia. The Armenian Apostolic monastery, built in the 9th century, hosted in the 14th and 15th centuries one of the most important Armenian medieval universities, the University of Tatev, which contributed to the advancement of science, religion and philosophy, reproduction of books and development of miniature painting. All by me, Poco2 07:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the light. This is a beautiful photo. You could sharpen the top of the spire just a tad if you like, but regardless, this is an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    Ikan,   Done Poco2 09:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image! I like the period of the day this image was taken.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning indeed! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry but at full reslolution I feel as it have a focuse issue. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    Christian, I applied some sharpening in the corner that KoH mentioned Poco2 17:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: Really sorry but I don't think there is a sharpening issue, it seems to my eyse that there is an issue with the focus or maybe a camera shake, this is not fixable, and honestly at full resolution it is disturbing, and sorry again but I don't understand the support votes here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Christian: Please, have a last look. My last try to catch you :) Poco2 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
No really, it's not fixable, if it is a HDR photo, I guess there maybe have been a little camera shake one one of the photos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice light indeed, but main subject is mostly not sharp. --Ivar (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    Will address the spots with frindges tomorrow. About the sharpness overall I just don't agree. I see detail everywhere --Poco2 23:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    Ivar:   fringing is gone Poco2 17:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think your edits have substantially improved this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The building itself is perfectly sharp; only the lower left corner has some unsharpness. And when I downsample to 50% (11 MP) even that disappears. -- King of ♠ 23:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support While fixing the noted fringing would be nice, it is not essential for me to support. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Light is not good for a FP. -- Zcebeci (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, I disagree, as I find the soft light of the early stages of sunset very relaxing and appealing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, and the light come from the wrong direction IMO. Nice place and composition though.--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Clinotarsus curtipes-Aralam-2016-10-29-001.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 04:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Amphibians#Family : Ranidae (True frogs)

File:Baños de Ganjali-khan, Kerman, Irán, 2016-09-22, DD 42.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2016 at 22:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Iran

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Tue 29 Nov → Sun 04 Dec
Wed 30 Nov → Mon 05 Dec
Thu 01 Dec → Tue 06 Dec
Fri 02 Dec → Wed 07 Dec
Sat 03 Dec → Thu 08 Dec
Sun 04 Dec → Fri 09 Dec

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

Fri 25 Nov → Sun 04 Dec
Sat 26 Nov → Mon 05 Dec
Sun 27 Nov → Tue 06 Dec
Mon 28 Nov → Wed 07 Dec
Tue 29 Nov → Thu 08 Dec
Wed 30 Nov → Fri 09 Dec
Thu 01 Dec → Sat 10 Dec
Fri 02 Dec → Sun 11 Dec
Sat 03 Dec → Mon 12 Dec
Sun 04 Dec → Tue 13 Dec

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]] ===
    === [[: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/December 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/December 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.