Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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

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

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

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

VotingEdit

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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes 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:Half geopende bloem van Rhododendron ponticum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 17:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) female underside.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 16:12:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Carretera al monasterio Noravank, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 55-59 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 13:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Panoramic view of the vanishing road through the Amaghu valley near the 13th-century monastery of Noravank, Armenia. The narrow gorge, located near Yeghegnadzor and 122 km from the capital, Yerevan, was eroded by the Amaghu River. All by me, Poco2 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of artefacts in the sky, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Peulle: if the reason why you opposed were the artifacts, they are gone. That's an easy fix. Thanks for the hint, I didn't see them. Poco2 17:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 11:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Thailand
  •   Info created by PumpkinSky - uploaded by PumpkinSky - nominated by User:PumpkinSky, note some insect removals were done by User:Michielverbeek back on 16 April 2017. -- PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Full disclosure: This image was previously nominated at FPC back in late April 2017. I did not have Lightroom back then and have now learned to use it. The first nomination can be seen here, but it's pulling up the current photo version, not the April version. Prior photo versions can, of course, be viewed in the file history. PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but to me it looks overprocessed and not quite sharp. Could be a VI, though, since it's better than the other images in the category.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:360° vom Schesaplana-Massiv.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 11:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Panoramic view over the Rätikon mountain range, taken on the trail from the Schesaplana to the Mannheim Hut. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive view and excellent quality regarding exposure and detail. Surely one of our finest. --Code (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was wowed when I saw it on QIC some days ago and it's still wowing! --Basotxerri (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I tried finding something wrong with this but failed. The depth is amazing, the sharpness good all across the range, no errors that I can see. You can even see the villages deep in the valleys below. Truly it lives up to the designation: "one of the best images on Commons".--Peulle (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Detail of Wasserglockenbrunnen, Munich, June 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 08:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Fountains
  •   Info Detail of Wasserglockenbrunnen, also known as Wasserpilzbrunnen on Frauenplatz, Munich, at night. It was designed by Bernhard Winkler in 1972. I'm absolutely sure pretty much nobody in Munich could identify this fountain as it's neither important nor spectacular - though situated very prominently. I also had to google its name(s). What I like about the picture is its abstract, almost graphic concentration on details, accentuated by its selective focus range and tight crop. Note that although the image may appear deliberately desaturated, it is in fact not. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Special. --XRay talk 10:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose due to light management (the brighter areas are gone), the subject is original, but the composition not stricking (I know that spot) and only one item is in focus Poco2 11:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, of course the lights are "gone". I mean we're talking about illuminating, bright spotlights. In the night. There wouldn't be anything left to rescue in post at all, not even by applying HDR techniques. I guess it's, as always, a matter of taste. I like both the chiaroscuro as well as the limited DOF. I'd also like to defend the composition that concentrates on one element, the sharp one in the front, but also presentes its "natural habitat" in the background. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Philharmonie, Berlin, 170518, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 06:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Blue hour shot of the south west facade of Berliner Philharmonie (concert hall). The architecture of the concert hall was always a little bit controversial here in Berlin but I somehow like it, especially when we have such a perfect blue hour as it was when I took this photograph. This is a multirow HDR panorama made of 63 single exposures. Before I decided to take a photograph of this view I was walking around the building several times. It was a little bit challenging to find the right perspective because it was very crowdy that evening and there were cars all around the building and I had to search quite a while until I found a place to avoid both the cars and the people to appear in the picture. The east side of the building is even more interesting to photograph but there are construction works going on and as usual in Berlin you never know when they will end or even if they will be finished at all. --Code (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm impressed. The noise in the sky is not worth mentioning, but are the dark spots in the sky in some cases dust spots? I don't know. But I'm willing to feature the photo as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good work.--Ermell (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support fine picture! I know the building's illuminated with yellow light but could it be that the WB here is just a tiny bit too yellowish? Not a dealbreaker anyway. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --XRay talk 11:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I love the overall ambiance. PumpkinSky talk 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment A nice one. I have though the impression that it would benefit from an adjustment of the aspect ratio. It looks a bit squeezed everywhere (not only the cars on the left, that's obvious). Poco2 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I wish some more normal color tones... seems like HDR plastique. --Mile (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof, Ostseite, 170430, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 05:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Berlin main station in the early morning light as seen from east. I went there each sunday morning again and again hoping for a perfect reflection. I tried different lenses and techniques (long exposure, different views, HDR and so on) until I finally got this capture, which is a multirow panorama made of 15 single exposures. It was very tricky and took me a long time to get them stitched properly as there are almost no control points in the water. Some might complain about the dark foreground: This is caused by the shadow of another building (HumboldtHafenEins, I think we don't have any pictures of it on Commons, yet) I was standing in front of (the sun came from behind me). All by me. --Code (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Superb! - --Ermell (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --XRay talk 11:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 03:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gåseberg Sheep Farm.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 22:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info I pass this farm almost every day and most of the time it is just an ordinary little sheep farm, but this day the clouds, light and field in front of it made it special. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the sharpness is too low, the sky too noisy and the sight is common for me. No wow. --Hockei (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Hmmm, still not sure about it... Nice colours and atmosphere, though. Where are the sheep?  ;-) BTW, could you remove the spot (bird, insect) in the sky? --Basotxerri (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ufo zapped! Thanks for noticing, thought I had got all of them. The sheep are in the smaller fields behind the farm and forest, the farmer rotates the crops and sheep. I'm not sure this field will be used for grazing this year. Btw, this is the same field earlier this year. --cart-Talk 14:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tokyo Metro and JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 19:48:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Something a bit different, for a change: Tokyo Metro meets JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.
  •   Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support urban chaos wonderfully captured --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There's a lot going on and normally this is not my kind of photography but somehow it works for me. Don't really know why, but I could look at it for hours. The shadow in the foreground is a pity but I suppose it's not possible to avoid it? --Code (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The photo looks very restless but very interesting at the same time. I would crop the sky with the uninteresting windows of the right house above because then the scene you want to show would be more in the focus of the viewer. Otherwise great. --Hockei (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guanajuato pano1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   InfoGuanajuato is a city and the capital of the state of the same name. Situated in a narrow valley, most of its narrow and winding streets are alleys that cars cannot pass through, and some are long sets of stairs up the mountainsides. Many of the city’s thoroughfares are partially or fully underground. The historic center has numerous small plazas and colonial-era mansions, churches and civil constructions built using pink or green sandstone. Historically Guanajuato was an influential mining city that, in the 18th century, accounted for two-thirds of the world’s silver production. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The shadow in the bottom is distractiong and the image needs a better stitching, in some areas it is tilted in one direction and in some other in the other direction. Quality, on the other side is very good. Poco2 18:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you mark/tag some zig-zag tilting areas please? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, Poco, I saw. Restitched from scratch, seems ok'ish now. Please mark if you see any errors still. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I added 3 notes, if you fix those areas, then you are good. Still, as mentioned, I find the areas in shadow too prominent, I'd probably crop the left side, as you couldn't anyhow capture the whole city from that spot and there is not much detail there to enjoy. What software do you use for the stitching? A template like {{Panorama}} would be pretty informative. Finally, I find the file size too big, going down from 30 to 12 MB wouldn't mean a lost of quality that you can perceive IMO (My camera delivers in a frame the same resolution like this panorama and I have played around with this variables often). Poco2 09:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guildfordia yoka delicata 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:18:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created and uploaded by Clodomiro Esteves Junior - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good composition but too noisy IMO--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise is acceptable and the image is really good. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • weak   Support a bit noisy and top crop could be improved --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent capture. Noise is not a big thing here and I think this is the perfect example of mitigating reasons. --Code (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others - the capybaras aren't too noisy. I admit to a bit of bias, in that I had pet guinea pigs as a child, so I like rodents, especially cute ones. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a very nice composition and HEV. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose Per Ermell. --Hockei (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, it's a bit noisy, but you cannot find such an scene in your garden posing for you. Great composition and acceptable quality for a 500 mm shot. Poco2 12:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell.--Peulle (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharpness and noise. Charles (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose due to noise. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arara Azul no Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Leonardo Ramos - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support New category: macro-bird-photography! (Focal plane seems to be a bit closer than the eyes but because of that most of the body feathers are in perfect focus and show wonderful detail so it's not a prob I think.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good, but please fix the categories, unless I'm mistaken, this is a photo of a bird not a park. --cart-Talk 20:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a kind of halo along the left border of the wing on the right side --Llez (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support per fixing halo noted by Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Ditto to what Daniel said above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support that would become full support if the image is lighten up, it's a bit too dark. Poco2 12:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:EstatuaFliaAlzaga-jun2017edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 12:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Highlights fixed, thanks @Llez: --Ezarateesteban 01:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, they now look posterized. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Reprocessed Ezarateesteban 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 0015-21.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 07:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There were lights behind the wall and the paintings are pale. --XRay talk 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, so they've faded. I'll go ahead and support. Nice job given the conditions.PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless I'll check for improvements. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 15:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Dachgeschoss -- 2017 -- 9918-24 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 04:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info There is a colored version of this image too. IMO the black-and-white one is the better one. It emphasizes the structure and the room. --XRay talk 04:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I am currently reading "Black & White Photography: The timeless art of monochrome in the post-digital age" by Michael Freeman (only £5.99 in the Kindle edition which looks great on my phone/PC). Freeman extensively discusses "why b&w", and this image is a great example. -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: didn't notice he had a new one out: thanks for the info → paperback pre-ordered. --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An irresistible storage of angles and lines. --cart-Talk 09:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agree, the b&w version is better. Lovely. Nice job. PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent bw conversion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral blacks are too harsh for the mood I think. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There are a lot of textures and contrasts everywhere, this picture is ideal for B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The emptiness of the room comes through more clearly in black and white. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tugboats Boss and Svitzer Hymer leaving Lahälla 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info Tugboats Svitzer Hymer and Boss in Brofjorden setting out to assist a tanker entering the fjord and the oil port at Preemraff oil refinery. The fjord is so deep that the tankers have no problem going right up to the berths and cliffs along the shore, but when the wind is strong (as it was this day), an empty tanker lying high in the water can drift when it's going at a low speed. That's where the tugboats come in. The tugboats are stationed at Lahälla, across the fjord from the oil port. I was there to photograph Ryxö island for sv-wiki, so I had a front row seat and camera ready when the boats set out. I got a whole series of shots and I like this one best because of the relatively clean background and also because the distance from the camera makes the two boats appear in more similar size in the photo. There is something very wow-y seeing such powerful boats making good speed across the water, even if you can't hear the sound in the photos. All by me, -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I can almost hear them. Atsme 📞 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good arrangement, with uncluttered background. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Love it, especially all the rich vibrant blues. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but the focus is a bit too soft for me, especially on the top half of the left boat.--Peulle (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the {{weak oppose}} or similar templates as the Bot can't count these. Use the piped version of {{o}} and {{s}} instead. I have fixed that for you now. :) As for the focus, well, in this case it was either sharper boats when they were closer but with a cluttered background, or boats further away with better background but softer focus. See the series on the file page. I chose the better compo. --cart-Talk 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that about the bot. Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Photographers don't often take a stern view of boats (I guess they like them too much  ). Good for you for making this one work so well. And how helpful that one of them has its IMO painted on its stern! Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! The stern is sort of the "business end" of a tugboat so more interesting than the bow. I also like the "going away on a mission" feeling you get from a stern view. --cart-Talk 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Winter Landscape with Brabrand Church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Landscape
  •   Info In this sunny June weather, here's a lovely winter landscape painting to cool you down. Painting by Christian David Gebauer. Photo all by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- of course -- --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - what Christmas cards are made of...Atsme 📞 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks like Currier and Ives PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love those old days! Jee 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • edges are seen on left and right side. --Mile (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • None of the frame is visible. There is nothing more to trim without losing painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • It could be some shadow from the frame, that is often a problem at museums. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see a way to avoid this without removing the painting from the frame. It isn't imo intrusive as the painting is quite dark. If our artwork experts think it is fine to trim a pixel off the left and right, then I can do that, otherwise I'd prefer to show as much of the painting as possible. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice cooling motif. It is captured very well so that you can see the brush strokes but they are not lighted in a way that disturbs the painting. Knowing how meticulous you are, I have no doubt the WB and color correspond with the original even, if they are a bit different from the other photos of this painting. --cart-Talk 09:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work, you can even see the cracks in the paint.--Peulle (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Elvis Presley, Delbert Sonny West, and Jerry Schilling meeting Richard Nixon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Ollie Atkins, chief White House photographer, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grainy, but cannot be retaken... I think this one is the best picture of the meeting. I did very little restoration. Please tell me if you think more is needed. -- Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the picture made me a little weak-kneed....(seeing Elvis of course)...Atsme 📞 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It has a certain wow factor, but the grain is disturbing. I know it was 1970, but the technology back then wasn't good enough to get a decent shot inside the White House? It just looks like the guy grabbed any old camera and took a snapshot rather than preparing with a proper camera and a flash. I'm not opposing because of said wow factor, but I just can't bring myself to support it either.--Peulle (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Oval was as ell lit during the everyday business as you'd think it was, meaning for simple hand held shots they had to use fast films -> grain. Also if you compare it to the Elvis-Nixon pic this clearly is a significantly better scan as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Aciagrion occidentale-Kadavoor-2017-05-08-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 14:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info Aciagrion occidentale, Green striped slender dartlet, is a species of damselfly in the family Coenagrionidae found in India, Sri Lanka. This is a small and slender damselfly. They are extremely slim compared to the length 22-24mm; that's why this genus is called "Slims". But, in spite of their delicate build, they enjoy migration by rising high in the air and takes advantage of its lightweight in air currents. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the angle of the plant and the insect --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it is too dark. Additionally the black background above the head and thorax is very disturbing me. The dragonfly almost merges with it. --Hockei (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wow! That dartlet is like the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner of the insect world. Atsme 📞 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support because of the dark background -- Wolf im Wald 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Charles (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Vettisfossenvideo.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 12:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by Kallerna. Not sure about the criteria for videos, but I guess this one has a lot of "wow". kallerna 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Its too short, and could be in 16:9, not 9:16. Strange to see. Also quality is not great, like not in HD. --Mile (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Mile ... I really don't think this phone-style video works for this. When it comes back up I want to see more of the landscape. If it had just been a static image of the waterfall, without any attempt to show the surroundings, I think it could have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also agree with Mile. It is too hasty, like a video you do when you don't want a too large file to send to friends on the phone. The rollercoaster panning of the shot does not make for a pleasant experience either. --cart-Talk 09:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. It has a bit of wow, but that's all it has.--Peulle (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Монашките испоснички пештери во Зрзе.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 10:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:EstatuaTumbaFliaAlzaga-jun2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Looks good at full screen on my laptop, but at full size, highlights are blown. Could you fix that? I'm not guaranteed to support if you do (I like the statue, so I may support, but I'm less sure about the other things at the bottom, so I might not vote), but if not, I will probably oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, per Ikan, there's a couple of technical issues --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others wrt blown highlights but the composition at the bottom is cluttered. Not even a QI I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Highlights fixed @Ikan Kekek: --Ezarateesteban 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    The image no longer appears to have any shadow or black tones at all. I think you need to learn to use RawTherapee better or else find a better tool. You could try "Capture One Express (for Sony) 10.0 Windows", which is what Jee uses. -- Colin (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for making the highlights less bright. I'm still not feeling wowed, though. The bottom and top of the statue are noticeably unsharp and the sky is a bit blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes; CaptureOne is free for Sony raw files. It has wonderful ability to keep the black as black even if we lift the shadows a lot. Jee 02:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise, CA and cluttered bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination thanks to all Ezarateesteban 12:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Lagartija de lava de San Cristóbal (Microlophus bivittatus), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 46.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info Male exemplar of a San Cristóbal lava lizard (Microlophus bivittatus), a species of lava lizard endemic to San Cristóbal Island (where the image was taken) in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Poco2 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition is out here. --Mile (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. Looks like a standard lizard pic. Composition looks haphazard. Daphne Lantier 18:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    Daphne: Standard? Please, show me a second lizzard with this sharpness and resolution Poco2 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    When I said standard, I was referring more to the composition. The sharpness and resolution might make it a viable VIC, but there's nothing wowing overall. The lizard is sitting on a rock (part of which is cropped out) with a busy background. I also wonder about the lens focal length. I would think you could get closer to a sitting lizard than 200mm. In the end, I'm just saying the image doesn't wow me; I'm not saying it isn't a quality image. Daphne Lantier 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Impressive, but the tail of the lizard lacks of definition. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Матка 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 21:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose The white balance does look really off to me. Also, there's quite a lot of noise.--Peulle (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the ripple effect in the water's reflection, the scene, the composition, the light refraction that makes it all seem unrealistic - love it. Atsme 📞 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now The noise is unavoidable when shooting fog (I know!) but the "fluorescent lamp" WB is not doing this photo any favors. I did a version taking the WB from the paint on one of the boats (it's in my dropbox) and this revealed a lot more detail in the mountains. It also gave the pic more depth since it shows that there is sunshine beyond the mists in the gorge. I could support such a version. --cart-Talk 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Henry VIII of England (Holbein).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 20:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. Henry was the second Tudor monarch, succeeding his father, Henry VII. Henry is best known for his six marriages and, in particular, his efforts to have his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, annulled. His disagreement with the Pope on the question of such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation, separating the Church of England from papal authority and appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Despite his resulting excommunication, Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings.Hans Holbein the Younger (German: Hans Holbein der Jüngere) (c. 1497 – between 7 October and 29 November 1543) was a German and Swiss artist and printmaker who worked in a Northern Renaissance style. He is best known as one of the greatest portraitists of the 16th century.He also produced religious art, satire and Reformation propaganda, and made a significant contribution to the history of book design. He is called "the Younger" to distinguish him from his father, Hans Holbein the Elder, an accomplished painter of the Late Gothic school. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose out of focus or motion blur --The Photographer 00:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very fine image, should try again - on higher ISO, some 1000 shouldnt hurt. --Mile (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; not up to the exceedingly high standard set by painting photos by institutions like the Getty Museum. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well below our standards for digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Half Dome from near Glacier Point.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 18:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Spectacular like the other one but is there a need for 2 almost identical FPs? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't see them as almost identical. There are significant composition differences IMHO. Even if there weren't, I'd still support. PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      •   Info Hello Kenny, this image was taken in 2016, the other one in 2015 during another trip. Moreover the images were taken from two different locations (see geodata) and I think they show different aspects (flora in the foreground vs. view into the valley). Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        •   Comment Not much below the exact same discussion was going on about two bird pictures and what constitutes "different enough". -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          •   Comment I've read the discussion, but between these bird images was a time difference of only a few minutes and the subject was the same (excluding the birds head pose). The Yosemite images show different perspectives and they have a time difference of about 11 months. Therefore the sky is very different becaus they were not taken at the same day. Besides the camera locations are about 500 meters apart (see geodata). So I don't think, that the situation is comparable with the bird. Regards -- Wolf im Wald 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
            •   Support People have spoketh. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - When I was comparing the two pictures, I felt the other one had a better composition, but this is such a big, sharp (with the exception of the near right corner) photo, with so many wonderful details that it deserves the star, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite a different viewpoint and composition with the foreground trees. Great resolution. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but probably I would play a bit with exposure and WB - maybe this is not optimal yet. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Anyhow per Uoaei1. --Hockei (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Feels like I could walk right into it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll bite on both these versions since they are so well done. Can't help but thinking that the Half Dome looks like a hooded version of the Grim Reaper looking out over his realm. --cart-Talk 10:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Eberstein Hochfeistritz Pfarr-und Wallfahrtskirche Unsere Liebe Frau 19062017 9688.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the diagonal line crossing the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Ezarateesteban 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I'm just not wowed. For me it's an average composition in average light. -- King of ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Compositionally very nice. --Code (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not the most "wow"-like image, but one thing that is usually difficult when shooting churches is to get the whole building from wall to spire sharp without distortions. That's done well here. Composition is good, depth is good - the only real issue with it is that the light is a bit boring. Next time, tell God to line up a sunset perfectly for you exactly when you need it. ;) --Peulle (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your comments about the lighting conditions comply one hundred percent with my thoughts about the situation of the image. Hopefully it will occur one day that I will be there shooting at sunup or sundown. I started my prayers to God asking Him for compliancy. ;) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the interplay of lines and forms. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Pink anemonefish BWP.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info Pink anemonefish (Amphiprion perideraion) shot underwater (Pacific) at dark thirty, approx. 40 ft. deep with noticeable current/surge as indicated by the anemone. Location was Manta Ray Bay, Federated States of Micronesia where the giant mantas fly in for cleaning. All by -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good shot, if there would be higher pixelage i would crop to enfocus the fish. --Mile (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice fish expresion and hight EV --The Photographer 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Atsme, based on your superb track record of ocean pics, I assume this is real color, including the blue parts of the anemone tentacles (though is there posterization?), and I will   Support like everyone else. I think the most logical place for the annotation in the file would be where the fish is; do you agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
All natural color, Ikan, and thank you for the kind words. The tips are iridescent so it's not surprising that with the refraction of light in the water and bounced light of the flash against the anemone tips, glints of different shades and colors would reflect off the tips. I do know the anemone will glow where the host fish touch it. I did clean up bits & pieces of backscatter in the background which is customary practice with u/w images. I also wouldn't doubt that when an anemone feels threatened, or it's host fish is fluttering about nervously that the reaction may cause some color changes but I'd have to do more research to be for certain. Apologies, but I'm not quite sure about your annotation reference?Forgot I added the annotation, and yes, I agree so I changed it.19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC) I encourage you to do whatever you feel is necessary. Atsme 📞 18:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support a few small but ok --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The tiny amount of motion blur on the anemones doesn't detract from the fact that this is a stellar FP. Outstanding work. --Peulle (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Finding Atsme! :) It looks almost like a painting. --cart-Talk 10:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Після грози ).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beeee-u-teee-ful....Atsme 📞 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It seems to be a spectacular picture but this is ps gone too far for me. Will absolutely support a more "modest" (and hopefully larger) version. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, summer thunderstorms in the mountains, in "regime time" they are so... -- Swift11
  •   Comment Swift11 please can you upload this image without downsizing. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Please, the size increased -- Swift11
  •   Support Thanks for the size upgrade. There's little EXIF info but I assume this was shot with your D80 which explains why this cropped photo is still only 5MP. I'm a bit skeptical that some of the scene owes to processing rather than reality, but assuming not, then it really is too fantastic a view to oppose over minor technical issues. Could you please add an English description to the file page? -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done English description added -- Swift11
  •   Oppose It's beautiful and all, but the technical issues stand in the way of an FP for me; there seems to be some chromatic aberrations by the top of the trees, then there's the compression issues/grain in the grass near the camera as well as in the fog on the near left.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Fixed some technical flaws... Peulle thank you! -- Swift11 13:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. Jee 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin; I don't see anything that bothers me enough to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Knez Miloš Obrenović.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 11:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Half Dome with Eastern Yosemite Valley.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 21:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info Template added. Thanks for your advice! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiang-Mai Thailand Buddhist-Manuscript-Library-and-Museum-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 20:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The clouds seem oddly dull and the EXIF confirms the Lightroom Whites are -66 which is really quite extreme adjustment. Mostly I find Highlights does a better job than lowering Whites. It seems wrong to have "white" clouds so dark. -- Colin (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I reverted to the previous version. I wanted it to have it quite bright so that the wooden structure is visible in a print. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I really like this. PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - perfect framing, great shot!! Atsme 📞 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good motiv, but there are severe CAs, especially along the stems of the two palms on the left side, along the left side of the whitish portal and on both sides of the litte "tower" in between --Llez (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  Done I would not rate this as severe, but indeed, a slight adjustment of the defringe parameters resolved the issue. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Better now --Llez (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Fort Point.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 19:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After looking for a better one I give up opposing. There insn´t one convincing me 100%. Never been there, I didnt´t know, that it seems to be very difficult to find an optimal shooting location. Maybe Baker Beach is a bit better.
  Support Finally I think now, this image belongs to the Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Also the slight haze is ok and typical for this motif. --Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others: Good, but doesn't really stand out among the masses. --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear FP for me.I cannot find masses of FPs of that bridge and especially from that point of view.--Ermell (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I took this picture when I realized that we don't have any decent pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge from that side of the Bay. If you browse throught the category Golden Gate Bridge from Fort Point you'll see what I mean. Now, there are many different ways you can photograph an iconic building like this. I chose to take a picture that shows it in a realistic and documentary style. Not one of those HDR / fake sky / etc. images. I tried to show the bridge the way I see it every morning. Ideally with some fog that slowly dissolves in the sun. I thought it was important to include Fort Point because it was almost demolished (the 1930s plan called for its removal), and I also tried to capture the enormous scale of the building. I acknowledge that other pictures might have more of a "wow factor" than this one. However, I'd just like to point out that I consciously captured the scene "as is", because I'd like us to have at least one featured picture of the bridge done without special effects. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. I got actually even more puzzled today when I looked at the Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Seems like we had no success in over a decade with creating a picture that shows the bridge as it is ;-)
  •   Support For Ermell!--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. 16 MP in reasonably good early morning light is quite sufficient for a normal featured picture, but for something so heavily photographed with multiple FPs already, I'd expect more, either on resolution or "wow" factor. The bar is simply set quite high for the Golden Gate Bridge, even if this exact view has no FPs. -- King of ♠ 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Carefully considered oppose, now that King, who has a lot of SF FPs himself, has !voted. I fully endorse Frank's initiative in trying to take an FP-level image of the bridge from this angle, but as good as it is the bar is still higher. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd like to comment on something else: there are a couple of white spots that I'm not sure about (see annotations), perhaps they're pixel flaws or perhaps it's nothing. But please take a look.--Peulle (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Peulle, it's birds. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment KennyOMG, Milseburg, El Grafo, King of hearts, Daniel Case: thanks a lot for your feedback. I really appreciate it. Over the past couple of years, feedback here on Commons has been essential for me to improve my photography skills. – Would you mind pointing me to photos on the web (Flickr, 500px, etc.) that come closer to what you're looking for? I'm really at a loss. Once I get a better idea of what you'd consider a superior picture, I'll go back and try to take a better image for Commons. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support it is a classical subject, nevertheless I like the picture.--Christof46 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. --Karelj (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit

 

  •   Comment I went back to the Presidio this morning and took a different picture. Do you like this version better? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Queichwiese.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 18:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Kontraproduktivität - uploaded by Kontraproduktivität - nominated by Kontraproduktivität -- Kontraproduktivität (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kontraproduktivität (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I really want to support this but have a few issues. 1) the sky is completely blown on the right side, any chance to recover? 2. The trees have a nasty aura above them (too much clarity? or other local contrast adjustments?), should be done without. 3. Dust spots need to go. (4? It feels, and based on the church roofs on the left side it also seems, it has a mild tilt to the right, but might be wrong about this.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice golden-hour tones but the landscape alas just isn't special for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Cheveche d'Athèna Ichkeul.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 15:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.09.09.-07-Anglersee Bruehl--Grosse Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 10:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love it although DOF is pretty low. -- Wolf im Wald 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - only the head and top left wing is in focus which gives me pause but overall it's quite catchy. Atsme 📞 16:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I used F13. This is according to my experience the best compromise between sharpness and DOF. F14, the next step, brings not much more worthwhile DOF in a picture like this and then F16 is hardly usable in most cases. -- Hockei (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Macros of tiny fluttery critters are near impossible to capture in full focus. Totally understand. Detail in the head, legs & anterior carapace are great!! Atsme 📞 03:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Alterskap Kvæfjord kirke 1520 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 19:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info all by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark, bad flash reflection. Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. -- KTC (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. Also looks like it could be rotated to straighten a bit. Atsme 📞 15:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per others. Daphne Lantier 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the reviews, people, they're helpful in understanding what is needed for FP shots. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Trithemis pallidinervis 1725.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 18:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - support everything except the soft focus. Atsme 📞 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The eyes should be sharp and they obviously are not in this case. Apparently was well concealed here.--Ermell (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Atsme and Ermell -- Wolf im Wald 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - Dull light and good but not exceptional sharpness, so though quite good, this photo doesn't seem to me to be quite up to the level of really outstanding odonata FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice dragonfly. But the quality is not good enough. Low Sharpness and too much noise. Also the crop could be better. Right and left is too much empty room. --Hockei (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quite surprised it got QI. Charles (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:New York 1911.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  •   Info created by Svenska Biografteatern, restored by the Museum of Modern Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Music removed, as it is under a copyright. Yann (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great historical document, very good restoration. -- Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weeeell I have maaaany concerns with this, starting with the poor lighting, the spots flickering across the screen ... nah, I'm just kidding, no doubt a   Support vote from me. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great document! But did the musical score credited at the end play for you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, not for me either, so I just started singing "New York, New York" over it. Somehow that sort of works.

It would be fun to try with "Empire State of Mind", too. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I made a version without the copyright mention at the end for the music, but I can't rename it over this one now (phab:T168374). Yann (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a pity, because the music credit is confusing and really should be excised for versions without music. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a temporary glitch. I will move it as soon as it is fixed. Yann (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - love the history! Atsme 📞 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing to see some familiar sights in there ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yes, I recognized quite a lot: Many of these buildings are still standing. Pity about that one wonderful low-rise building, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - in some scenes you see the price for this extreme denoising: dark shadows around black silhouettes - but overall a phantastic restauration. --PtrQs (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul 112.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Hockei (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Bottom crop is too tight on the tail feathers. Daphne Lantier 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent capture. Good and sharp rendition of the plumage.--Peulle (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 20:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good; but just turning the head in a few minutes difference will not make another FP. Jee 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. @Yann, Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Peulle, Der Wolf im Wald:@PumpkinSky: -- you can support both if you like but just making you aware we promoted the other side of his head only three weeks ago, and this frame wasn't uploaded at the time. I think El Golli Mohamed has uploaded many fine bird photos, and I'd prefer so see a nomination of a different one. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Machts nichts. It's the same species, maybe even the same bird, but it's not the same picture nor another version of the same picture. According to the EXIF data the two pics were shot at different times on the same day. It's in a different position and in a different pose. Oppose if you like though, @Colin:. PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Being new at FPC, I'm still a bit confused. Last time I asked, the answers seemed to conclude that it would be OK with several FPs of the same species of bird, but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP. Thinking about it now, I think I'll make my own decision instead of looking for a consensus: the way I read the rules, they want to avoid having several FP images that are very similar. Otherwise users would just upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs. I think this case hits that criterion - the only difference is the direction of the bird's head, everything else is the same IMO: position, location, time (only 4 min between). Personally, I think this capture is slightly better, so I would prefer to have the other image delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2017‎ (UTC)
        • Most of the photographers here will have many photos of each subject taken at essentially the same moment. For example, in the three minutes between these two photos, the camera EXIF claims 44 shots were taken. We choose the best one, rather than nominating every variation of subject movement, and I think most of us here would not like FP to become a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured. That's what "finest" is about. Like El Grafo, I would support a "delist and replace" if El Golli Mohamed thinks this one is superior. I think they are much the same. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
          • @Peulle, Colin: Your posts explain your positions better. The crux of this issue is shown by "but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP", if 44 shots in 4 minutes is too similar, is 50 in 5 minutes ok? Just how much of the body position needs to change? "upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs" and "a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured" suggest we want to avoid "FP count-itis", which I agree with. So the question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line? People aren't going to agree on this. I'll ponder this issue more. PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
            • I don't think anyone would support trying to regulate this with something official, so there is no need to "draw the line". Why reduce the argument down to one that a machine could judge? Generally, this has not been a problem: most nominators quickly get the message that they should nominate a variety of dissimilar images. Mostly this sort of thing happens by accident because people are unaware of the nomination of a similar image. Part of the review process is examining similar images and similar FPs, and sometimes nominators forget to do this. FP is not just a method for choosing "our finest" work, but a forum where people enjoy reviewing great photos. If folk started nominating a series of similar images they took at the same time, perhaps with the argument "this one is just as good, therefore should be featured too" then we'd all get really bored really quickly. And there would also be a feeling that games were being played simply to get more FPs (not saying this is the case here). -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
              • By drawing the line I meant we each have to decide where that line is ourselves. People will never agree what is too similar or not. PumpkinSky talk 14:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
                • Agree not everyone will agree on each image, which is why we vote/discuss, but the "line" doesn't have to be determined by some personal algorithm like you seem to imply with the 44 vs 50 frames question. It is more of a gut feeling and judgment call. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. FP is about images that stand out against others, so featuring basically the same motif twice doesn't make much sense to me. I like the composition of this on a bit better, so I'd probably support a "delist and replace" nomination, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. --Hockei (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Though an analogous photograph, of the same author and about the same subject, was featured some weeks ago, it does not diminish the quality of this photo or its usefulness. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Harlock81, QI is the project where useful/high-quality is judged without reference to previous works. FP is for the "best" or "finest". -- Colin (talk)
      • Colin, IMHO if "the best" was been meant in a so absolute way, probably none picture presented in the last weeks could be considered appropriate for FP. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you are misinterpreting what "the best" means. -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem is that "the best" and "the finest" aren't clearly defined in the rules. It seems to me that Colin interprets that to mean "the finest within a group of photos that are highly similar" (akin to VI rules). Even that begs the question "what exactly does highly similar mean?". As I said before, people simply aren't going to agree on this topic...it's too nebulous to precisely pin down. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          • You are seeing problems where there aren't. Of course these cannot be "clearly defined". It is our job as "the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons". It seems pretty clear to me the community is capable of determining this without rules, an generally it does not require this much navel gazing as to whether we need rules or not. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose delist and replace. Charles (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Charlesjsharp and others above. Atsme 📞 15:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:HVB-Tower and Mae West, Munich, June 2017 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 13:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is a fine photo, and I'm likely to support it, but I'd like to know why the trees on the right and left sides are so unsharp. Is it because of motion blur, due to the 13-second exposure? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • yes, exactly. The trees in the middle are unsharp as well but the ones to the left and right are much nearer, so the motion blur is way more visible... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you.   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:A mountain seen while going Dhumba lake.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 11:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Iceshra - uploaded by Iceshra - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Yann (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are those halos on the left, where the brown mountain in the foreground meets the white background?--Peulle (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support-- KennyOMG (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And which mountains are those? Categories are missing, and the image title should also say so. I'd guess Nilgiri North and Tilicho left in the background (under the white cloud), but I don't know for sure. Lupo 13:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Reasonably well-done from a technical standpoint, but compositionally it doesn't stand out from so many of our other mountain landscapes. It feels, actually, like the right half of a possibly featurable panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Further information about the motif are lacking. I´m not conviced with the composition. IMHO there ist too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.04.-04-Mannheim Vogelstang--Haussperling-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 10:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Just a   Comment. I don't think that the nature wants to expose eyes of (this kind of) birds to the sun. Also the area around the eyes is black so it has a reinforcing effect. --Hockei (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's true about birds' eyes. 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info New version with changed crop. --Hockei (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lošmi (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The softness and delicacy may be an inadvertent result of uncertain processing, or they may be deliberate, but the end result is the same different take on this very common sort of image here. This way, it almost looks like what you see printed on the side of that cup your grandmother serves you tea in when you go to her house. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Silesian Beskids - hiking trial to Barania Góra peak 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After reading other people point of view including agreement with Ikan I change my vote to   Neutral. --Hockei (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The contrasts between the sky, forest and crystaline snow gives sufficient wow factor for me. The depth of the image is enough to see the frost fog in the valleys far below.--Peulle (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Puelle PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Something that never happen in South India; so I may be biased. Jee 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - The technical quality of this photo is really high and it has a nice winter mood. I especially like the frosty trees and the pastel colors in the background. However, the crop on the upper right bugs me enough to mildly oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - love the layered background on the left, the colors and sparkle of the snow. The crop could have started at the gap just past the first few trees on right as the overall beauty of the picture is more to the left. Atsme 📞 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin; it was the nominator's good fortune that I first saw this on a particularly warm and humid day, in my own home, which by choice does not have air conditioning. Makes me want to go down to the basement, get skis or snowshoes, and enter it. I can practically feel the crispness of the air. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Museo de la Catedral de Quito, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:25:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View of the Archiepiscopal library, located in the museum inside the Metropolitan Cathedral of Quito, located in the Historic Center of Quito, capital of Ecuador. The construction of the catholic temple began in 1562 and it was consecrated 10 years later. The collection of the library includes hundreds of works of theology and liturgy some of them from the 16th century and most from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. All by me, Poco2 08:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great composition! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed, great composition, despite the table (?) at the right. --A.Savin 13:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    A.Savin, that's not a table but the same surface you can see (or guess) also in the pictures. Again, no tripods where welcome and the lighting was not the best, so I had to look for a spot to put the camera. Poco2 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wouldn't have realized the photo was taken without a tripod. It looks about as good as possible to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peulle (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Atsme 📞 16:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Praha Spanish Synagogue Interior 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 06:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Czech Republic

File:Gevlekte orchis. Orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata) 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 04:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alternative, another versionEdit

 

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Orchidaceae .
  •   Info Spotted Orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata). Spotted Orchid is on the red list in the Netherlands. The blurred background is the natural habitat of the orchid.
  •   Support Atsme 📞 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging opposers to see if they like this version better: Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Ikan Kekek Atsme 📞 19:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Better, yes, but undecided on whether to support or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support this too. Jee 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Río Ibar, Ribarice, Serbia, 2014-04-15, DD 02.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 05:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is a great photo, and I'd like to argue preemptively against any suggestion of cropping or retouching the photo so as to eliminate the garbage from the near left corner. I think it serves as both a contrast to the beautiful natural scene and a visual lesson to people to stop littering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you Ikan! Poco2 08:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not seeing what is special here. Perhaps I am used to damp weather in Scotland. Bare trees, and not especially sharp image, with the lighting so diffused there is little contrast. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - To me, the mist is a feature, not a bug, but I also really like the the form, with its topography. But it's inescapable that scenes that are usual for any of us tend not to produce a feeling of wow, so I understand your reaction completely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The earthtones are lovely. Imagine traveling the road on the left. I've actually had similar adventures in the Andes, and several busses now have new button holes in the seats where this gal sat. Atsme 📞 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Calming and subtle. -- King of ♠ 03:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. I don't find the composition striking, it seems almost random, and the litter at the left front is distracting and discordant. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Colin. --Milseburg (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel, "random" is the first (and only) word that pops in my head. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't find this kind of comments (towards nominator, author or supporters) particularly respectful Poco2 15:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Poco, I think you've been here long enough to not expect oppose votes to be sugar coated. Clearly some people, myself included, aren't "getting it". While I can see that you are looking up the winding river valley, so that's why you pointed the camera this way, the elements of the composition aren't quite fitting. There isn't really a focal point for the eye, hence perhaps the "random" comments. It isn't to my mind going beyond the snap any tourist might quickly take at a lay-by. Ikan's litter justification is really stretching photographic review excuses -- one could say that sort of thing about any view spoiled in some way. Considering the continuous stream of nominations from you, Poco, the fact that this image is three years old tells me it isn't really one you regard as among your finest. You take great photos, so I don't know why Ikan has to scrape the barrel here. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Because I obviously don't agree with you that I'm "scraping the barrel". Nor do I agree in the slightest that there's anything "random" about the form. It's good for you to give a clear analysis of your opinion, but going further and assuming that others (7 people so far) couldn't possibly have a different, thought-through reaction, which is the way I (mis-?)read your comment above, is not reasonable. As for the garbage, if you don't like the idea of it as an object lesson, my response would be simply that it's there and it's part of what I consider a great composition. I don't go by the original ancient Roman ideal of landscapes as an idealized version of countryside views for the exclusive use of people who live in cities, too far away from the countryside to view it from their homes or properties. We're well beyond that time now, having gone through a series of Modernist periods. As you know, I tend to judge photographic compositions to a large degree as I judge paintings: I move my eyes around the picture frame to experience a linear arabesque. In this case, I also enjoy the contours of the topography, yes, the trees, the mist - all of it. It doesn't speak to you. As we say in the U.S., that's what makes horse racing (maybe you have the same expression in Scotland). I saw this photo relatively recently at QIC, and Poco has a very long backlog of photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP, so I doubt that your deduction about the implications of the photo being 3 years old really holds water, but of course Poco can address that himself if he so chooses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan only five people, other that yourself and Poco, supported it and four oppose. That's a pretty dreadful ratio for FPC. Considering Pocos good photos tend to get 10 solid support within hours, this is certainly and without any question "scraping the barrel" when it comes to Poco nominations. If this is really the best that you can come up with, of all the images by Commons FPC regulars, and by others we are less familiar with, then I rather despair for the project. I think you misunderstand Poco's list of potential FPs. It isn't, as I understand it, "photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP", but ones he's at some point in time when he uploaded them, considered might be worth a punt some day. Having sat on this one for three years, it certainly and without any question, isn't one of the ones that jump out at him and say "pick me pick me" every time he looks at it. It's all very nice for Poco to get a free extra vote when you nominate from his backlog. The rest of FPC crowd, who mostly nominate their own works, have to make do with earning six other supports rather than five. It isn't as though there's a shortage of great images on Commons that haven't been nominated yet. I don't, for the record, assume others "couldn't possibly have a different, thought-through reaction", that's why I wrote "some people..aren't getting it", rather than "anyone with eyes in their head can obviously see that...". FP is about picking the finest, not just working through some list of images Poco has likely seen and passed on many times already.
Ikan, I rather suspect you could pick the "random file" link on the left side of Commons, and make an argument about how you really like the image, how you love to move your eyes about it while experiencing a linear arabesque, and that the glaring defects serve as as some kind of lesson to society. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, will keep it short. First, the fact (and that is one) that oppose votes are not sugar coated is fine to me. Being rude or disrespectful to nominators, author, etc. is different and having been like this for a while doesn't mean that it is fine and we should keep on doing it. My opinion.
Ikan didn't get this image from my "FP candidates by User:Poco a poco" category (as it isn't included there), but, as he said, saw it recently in QI. I guess that the story is straightforward: he saw it, he liked it, he nominated it. Period. I do have a big backlog of images where I see some potential to FP (the cat mentioned earlier), some of them I take back later, some I propose, I do not definitely believe that everything in that cat should become FP. I recently nominated a picture from Machu Picchu, 2 years old, 20 votes, all supports and a picture from Cambodia, 4 years old, 12 votes, all supports. Therefore I don't necessarily see a link between the age of the nominated pictures and the likelihood to become FP, the barrel is probably still half full...Poco2 22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Whoaaaa, my apologies! Didn't want to start a firestorm but yes, I think the scene depicted is pretty random (in the most non-offensive way possible), especially in in light of your other work that pops up on FPC. I disagree about the extra vote argument, 95% of your pics don't need it and the rest don't pass even with - save for the odd exception every once in a blue moon. And I hope the barrel is more than half full and glad to see you didn't stop uploading after the "Arabic-incident". :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Colin, I'm not an "extra vote" just because I chose to nominate a photo, and it strikes me as really disrespectful for you to imply that I pick photos completely randomly and don't have any standards (your "random file" stuff, which to me is really nasty crap, my friend). You should instead have enough respect to view my standards as different from yours even if you violently disagree with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Ikan, I didn't say you picked photos at random. I don't suggest you have no standards. What I am suggesting is that you are perfectly capable of taking a "meh" image that has some likable qualities, persuading yourself that it is great, and writing some arty nonsense about linear arabeques and how you love moving your eyes about the image. We've seen that line on many failed nominations. The fact that photo wasn't framed well enough to avoid the lay-by garbage is simply a photographic failure. Your nomination excuse for it is really rather desperate.
Poco, you know I regard you as one of the finest photographers here, and your record at FP confirms that. Kenny's vote was blunt but was about the image, nothing more, and to claim it was "disrespectful" implies you want some sugar coating and for us all to praise you before delivering the bad news. Do we have to begin every oppose with "With the greatest respect to my fellow reviewers who have supported this image, and to this fine photographer who's work I have often praised, I'm sorry to say ...". I didn't mention the backlog until Ikan's rather strange comment that "Poco has a very long backlog of photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP" which, the way it is worded, suggests it is maintained for the purpose of attracting bonus nominations by others, which I doubt is your intention. The fact that you can find some old images in your backlog that do well at FPC doesn't really form any kind of scientific argument against the fairly obvious reasoning that great images will tend to be nominated quickly and weak images sit on the pile (which has 458 images). Poco, if you want to show respect to your fellow contributors here, who tirelessly review your images in a constant stream, who don't always word their reviews as carefully/respectfully as you might want, then you could vote at FPC. Last time you voted on an image that didn't have "DD" in its filename was February. -- Colin (talk)
Colin, I understand your point better, but really, my remark is "rather desperate"? If so, what about my remark on the nomination just above this, which looks likely to be very quickly voted in by overwhelming consensus? I'm still pretty annoyed at you, as I think of all kinds of great art that's very frank and doesn't avoid the ugly parts of reality (not an "excuse" or "arty nonsense", but decades of modernist works going all the way back to the frank depictions of factories and smokestack emissions in Impressionist art, and I don't have to go further afield than "Impression:Aube" for that), but I do respect your right to have a strong and vociferous opinion and paid a lot of attention to things you told me before, with improved results you seem to be ignoring. Remember, though, that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Your remark on the nomination above is fine: you aren't "desperately" trying to turn a defect into a strength, and are pretty honest about the weaknesses. And you know I approve of nominators giving an explanation of why they think the image is worth featuring. I'm all for depicting the "ugly parts of reality" but if we're discussing "art" then really it has to be the intention of the artist and then in this forum at least, for there to be some consensus that the artist has achieved that aim. I really honestly don't think Poco took this photo of the low cloud in a valley in Serbia in order to make some social point about people leaving litter in lay-byes. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I now understand and take your point on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Colin: I'm not made of butter, I don't ask for something like "With the greatest respect to my fellow reviewers who have supported this image, and to this fine photographer who's work I have often praised, I'm sorry to say ..." but I'd just like to remind to everybody that behind each picture there is a photographer who intended to show something to the viewer. "Random" means to me something like pressing the shutter buttom without any criteria, and that's something I gave up doing 20 years ago.
You surely are right when you criticize that I haven't participated in FPC for months, so I did it today and will continue doing it until I I run into troubles once more for expressing my honest opinion. You don't mind investing hours in discussions about who is right and why, and I respect that, but that's exactly what I am not ready to do here. I rather spend my time elsewhere. Poco2 12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
KennyOMG: Sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't uploaded any new images on Commons since March, just on flickr. My submission for Wikimania to tackle the problems listed on my user page in a workshop was rejected. It looks like unfortunately community topics have been reduced to the minimum in the programme, which agains make me think that nobody cares... Poco2 12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Garaio - Puente de Azúa 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 20:33:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme 📞 21:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The straight shadows help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Livio. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice enough composition, though quite a common one for a bridge. The vanishing point isn't even close to being centred, which is quite important for this kind of composition. So I don't think this reaches the FP bar. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Colin, thank you for your comment. In fact, I see that there is potential for improvement. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Colin. I trust, however, that the irregularity of the railing lines is as is and not an effect of the photography? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin, the lack of symmetry is distracting. -- King of ♠ 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arch of Constantine at Night (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 18:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
  •   Info The Arch of Constantine (Italian: Arco di Costantino) is a triumphal arch in Rome, situated between the Colosseum and the Palatine Hill. It was erected by the Roman Senate to commemorate Constantine I's victory over Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. Dedicated in 315, it is the largest Roman triumphal arch. The arch spans the Via triumphalis, the way taken by the emperors when they entered the city in triumph. All by -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent Atsme 📞 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First I wanted to support this nomination, but after looking closer at it I'm not really convinced any more. When looking at the fence you can see that the whole picture is leaning backwards (and/or to the right) a little bit. The fence should be rectilinear. Also, there is a part at the right side missing which spoils the symmetry. Another thing is that I can see a strange halo (looks like banding) around the arch when looking at it at 100% size although I have to admit that I'm not sure whether it's a problem with my display. Maybe someone with a calibrated display can have a closer look at it? Generally I would prefer a blue hour shot. The darkness of the night makes the trees merge with the sky. They would contrast better if the sky was a little bit brighter. Then we have the usual problem that the file description is not sufficient and a geotag is missing. --Code (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code -- Wolf im Wald 00:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Atsme. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I love this arch, but the strong white light and particularly the shadows are unfortunately very distracting to me. I realize that there may be no way to avoid these shadows in a night photo, which could mean that I don't think an FP night photo of this arch is possible, though of course I take everything case by case. But I think the main point is to get a great photo of the arch in which all of one side is optimally visible, and that probably requires more even light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I suggest trying from this angle which will make the fence less dominant and is a better angle for showing the 3D form. I agree that blue hour is better, though Ikan may be right that the artificial lighting isn't great and you are stuck with it. We're not seeing much detail of the artwork on the arch, and our FPs often do show more detail than this. So a stitched image may be the way for you to get more detail from your camera. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Jupiter’s Clouds of Many Colors.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 07:38:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
  •   Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Gerald Eichstädt /Seán Doran uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice shot but I don't like the tight composition on the left side. -- Wolf im Wald 13:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Wolf. Daphne Lantier 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support agree with Ikan - full shot is pretty amazing. Atsme 📞 21:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is awful. --Hockei (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Hockei. There's no reason for the dead space (ahem) on the top and bottom. Just because so many smartphone photos are necessarily framed this way, it doesn't mean photos by space probes, many of which were launched long before smartphones, have to look like that too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd support if the top and bottom were cropped tighter.--Peulle (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Parboiled rice with chicken, peppers, cucurbita, peas and tomato.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 20:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ciconia ciconia - Heidelberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 17:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kla road1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 04:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info The road passes the last settlement, Khardung village (right), before snaking up the mountains to the "world's highest motorable pass" Khardung La. (It is actually the world's 4th-5th highest such pass.) This road is of strategic importance to the Indian army for supplying troops at the Siachen Glacier and is motorable year around since 1976, thanks to the Border Roads Organization's efforts. Khardung itself is situated at 4000m; the snowy peaks rise ~2900m above the village. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Very well-done generally, but dark areas up front are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question No exif data? --Hockei (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 5D mk1, 35mm, f/8, 1/1250, Iso 200. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I mean I'd like to see the original exifs in the image you removed.   --Hockei (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does it matter? -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 07:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The village nestled in the foothills, the snowcapped peaks, the contrasting shadows, +tech quality - I like! Atsme 📞 19:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ladakh! Jee 03:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - I've lived with this photo for a while, and I've decided that a combination of the really interesting landforms and the general sharpness of the photo (though not quite as much on the village in the background) with the importance of the terrain being depicted merits this photo being featured. And I kind of like the shadows in the foreground. They and the rather small amount (but just enough) of sky are a nice change as they are well shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Ikan, I totally agree with you about the shadows: the one on the left, in the foreground, helps me to focus on the village and the peaks in the background and the shadows on the right make the otherwise barren brown rocks a bit more interesting to look at. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Aussicht Kleiner Gleichberg Süd.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 10:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the stone run on the summit of Kleiner Gleichberg southward. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)}}
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Neptuul (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm not jaded at what an achievement this is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Half the image is of rubble, with the piles on the left and right dominating the image. 2000px vertical is not very high resolution for a panorama and this image suffers from lack of detail in the distant hill and trees are just green smudges. There's not enough sky. When one looks out at a landscape from a high viewpoint, one sees a lot of sky, so the vertical crop here is unnatural. I like the sunlight/rain on the right side of the distance, though the effect isn't strong. The left distance is just dark and gloomy and little detail. A central crop concentrating on the hill would be a better image, though far too low resolution for FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Again I think you're not right, Colin. A large resolution doesn't make a FP. Sky can be seen everywhere. It´s not necessary to blow up this image with content not characteristic for this location. I also diasgree with your proposed cut. The "rubble" (en:stone run) is characteristic for this mountain. It would be totaly wrong, to exclude right this. Especially regarding the use in any wiki-projekt. --Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
While a large resolution doesn't make an FP, a low resolution most certainly does diminish it's chances. Given that 2Mp was the short dimension when cameras were 6MP, and was the long dimension when cameras didn't even reach 2MP, there is little excuse for a modern panorama being so short height-wise. Stick your camera in portrait orientation and get a larger height. This is about our finest work, and yet you keep nominating images that have no composition qualities that IMO put them among our finest works. Simply rotating the camera around the tripod head on a high viewpoint in Germany is not sufficient to make an FP. Where's the "great light", where's the "great composition", where's the "superb detail". There isn't anything here that makes me think this is close to FP I'm afraid. I'm quite familiar with mountains and very typically the rough ground / stones at one's feet is not photogenic, and isn't generally part of the view one wants to include to a great degree. It's all about deciding what to include and frame in your picture, and these panorama just seem to lack any compositional/framing decision-making at all. Have a look at the FP category. There are images there that pop off the screen and make you go wow. That's FP. Not this I'm afraid. This is just a view. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Colin, we keep having different opinions and preferences. In Germany a lot of summits are able to impress by itself. Obviously I'm more excited about this motifs than you. --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support pace Colin - but the image works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support after reading Colin and Milseburg's exchange. The technical shortcomings are not as bad as some other images, and having hiked amid similar stone runs I totally understand that it's the real subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Gurk Domplatz 1 Torturm Innenseite Stoeckl Loggia mit Saeulenaufgang 13062017 9423.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 05:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done @Daniel Case: Apparently I exaggerated the processing. I set tone and color rendition back to the original values. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  Support now. It looks so much better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I will support once you remove the dust spots - there are two light ones a bit to the left of the right margin near the top and there's also a really small one above the right side of the cloud. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - You're welcome. I think I still see a tiny spot above the right side of the cloud in the upper center of the picture and possibly one more tiny one near the top margin some ways to the right of that, but don't kill yourself fighting ghosts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Who ya gonna call? :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Dr. Peter Venkman most supposedly. And if not available, Dr. Egon Spengler. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a fan of the vertical shadows cast by the midday lighting. -- King of ♠ 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support And 7....i don't know what's the king's problem of the shadows.....--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

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

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

Thu 15 Jun → Sat 24 Jun
Fri 16 Jun → Sun 25 Jun
Sat 17 Jun → Mon 26 Jun
Sun 18 Jun → Tue 27 Jun
Mon 19 Jun → Wed 28 Jun
Tue 20 Jun → Thu 29 Jun
Wed 21 Jun → Fri 30 Jun
Thu 22 Jun → Sat 01 Jul
Fri 23 Jun → Sun 02 Jul
Sat 24 Jun → Mon 03 Jul

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

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

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{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 exampl