Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


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

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

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

Formal thingsEdit


Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Above all, be politeEdit

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

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

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

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

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

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Pepe Lopez Peugeot 208 T16 (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 17:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Draco volans 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a dramatic picture even though it's a museum specimen, so I'll   Support, but I'm sure you'll have complaints about the lack of sharpness of the head, so you might try your hand at sharpening it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done You are right, sharpness of the head is corrected --Llez (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4754 smial wp.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info all by me -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like the "Hey, you!" gesture and expression. What are we looking at that appears to be a narrow diagonal shaft of light? Is that exactly what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Regardless of the motion blur, I'm inclined to support because of the expression, but similar question as for the other one: Is that a reflection of him and the guitar in the upper left corner of the frame? If so, fine, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. I've taken a little series of pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior, of which I like -01 best, although that was a tough choice. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers about 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I thought to nominate it. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really great! --cart-Talk 10:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017Edit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:58:56 (UTC)

  •   Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. As suggested by Ikan, I'd like to nominate a set of three pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, solely on the basis that the three are too similar in my opinion to all be FP, while the base image might be FP worthy. It took me a second to see the illumination differences. As the color is only a narrow strip in the overal image, it is technically colorful, but not in the most impactful way. The sky and the rest of the building is dominating here. An example of a truly colorful building would be Munich's Allianz Arena, were a set nomination showing off the colors would make much more sense, just by the total area of color occupying the image. – LucasT 07:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I guess you're right, Lucas. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hinckley Daysailor 42 by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created and such by -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. The wave breaker adds an unusual element to this photo. But please add a geotag and much better description plus categories. Since you have entered this in the "Sports" FP category instead of "Objects/Vehicles/Sailboats", I guess the pic is from some competition and that plus location should also be explained. --cart-Talk 09:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you, the photo is of a "Yacht Racing" in an annual NHYC Regatta.--Don (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 1/500 not fast enough to freeze motion. Charles (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergwandeltocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italy) 23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Mountain Walking Tour from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Views of the surrounding landscape. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice color depth and well composed --Don (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice colors and stunning view. It reminds me of those pictures they had on chocolate boxes when I was a kid. --cart-Talk 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice pic and beautiful have a lady here --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a pretty spectacular picture, especially the lighted rocky mountainsides, and it's at its best at full size. I see the one tree in the near foreground all the way over to the right as a slight imperfection, but I doubt that cropping it out would make the overall composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk)
  •   Support Like a Romantic painting --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Salar de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 64-67 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. All by me, Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Another beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Spectacular, though there's a slight ca in the clouds (top/left edges green and right magenta). On another note I think just the small portion of the road and the rocks above, with the clouds behind would be enough alone to make this an fp; but this has so much more. KennyOMG (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Any color fringing is very very minor and requires you to be actively searching for it. Beautiful pano. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:TS-11 SPARK Aerobatic team White-Red Sparks Danish Air Show 2014-06-22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport
  •   Info Personally, I like the composition, light, and colors on this one taken a beautiful summer morning as the bi-annual Danish Air Show 2014 was about to begin. The pose of the pilot with one shoe tip towards the ground showing a self-confident pilot, probably proud to be on his countrys show team (this is the White-Red Sparks from the Polish Air Force), the other pilots and crew discussing the events to come. There is a tranquility before action mood to the scenary, in sharp contrast to the noise level, which was very high as all the aircraft had their jet engines on. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition, but there's too much posterization on the planes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really cool photo. Can't see any posterization though. What I can see are shadows and reflections on some planes from the adjacent planes. There are also discolorations from fuel, oils, overheating, repairs with mismatched paintjob and everything that comes with maintaining planes like these. Sure, the colors can look blotchy when you see the planes on the ground, but who cares, it doesn't matter when they are up in the sky doing their thing. :) I just wonder if it is possible to get rid of that little round thing on the tarmac far right in the photo? --cart-Talk 00:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose - It strikes me that between the shallow DoF and the heat distortion from the hot tarmac, almost nothing is sharp or in focus. I agree with the nominator that the standing pilot's pose is a compelling element, but he's so blurry that he doesn't really serve as any sort of main subject, which is what I would have liked to see. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Juliancolton, unfortunately --El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:1 Singaporeskyline9g.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 23:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Special place, light well managed. -- Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Impressive indeed but there's some weirdness going on in the sky, seems like color banding or maybe stitch lines? It's very much visible and I doubt could be fixed without starting over from the raw files. It's also leaning to the left ever so slightly but visibly. KennyOMG (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I was going to comment about the strange shapes in the sky and water from stitching problems. Those do have to be fixed before this photo could be featured. Chensiyuan, do you have the time to fix those problems in the next week or so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment on first sight it's great - oh no, sorry: It's a terrific view, - but even if you can tame your stitching software, only some of the buildings are sharp, others not at all. --PtrQs (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree with others. It needs restitched. Perhaps also Smartblend to hide any stitching issues better. Also, please don't use AdobeRGB for the web; use sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   digression - I thought only people from the Pittsburgh area used the "needs +-ed" construction ("the car needs washed" [or "warshed"]; "that bug needs killed"). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
No Ikan, we do in Scotland too. Charles (talk)
@Charlesjsharp: A lot of Pittsburgh/Western Pennsylvania's original European settlers were Scots-Irish; that probably explains that. In rural areas you still hear older people talking about how they might need to "red up" the house before company comes, which is also Scots-Irish. However, I don't know if "yins" as the second-person plural is something you'd hear in Scotland (you will in Pittsburgh). Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Provisional support on fixing whatever errors there are. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat srichum 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting view, - but I think that color fringes had to be fixed --PtrQs (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretful   Oppose due to insufficient image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per fixable CA issues noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Tomer T: I really like this photo with its unusual perspective and seeing that Khunkay isn't very active at the moment, I have fixed a version with most of the CA removed and a very, very slight noise reduction. Do you want me to upload it on this file? You can always rollback the edit if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I like that picture, so let's have a look. --PtrQs (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question BTW: is it possible to describe what we see in real english? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done --cart-Talk 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PhuSangWTF 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bokeh looks somewhat weird but doesn't detract from the overall image. KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Upper left part is somewhat dark, maybe this is improvable. The description says "English" but it obviously isn't. Should be fixed as well. Otherwise an excellent picture which would get my support. --Code (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Dark left part attracts the attention to the right part, and that is most important part. Please don't reduce the left darkness too much --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Something different, thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Picture is fine as it is, but the "English" description should be fixed. --cart-Talk 10:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment description fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I've decided I like this enough to support a feature. It's best at laptop screen size, not at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WTF could be changed --The Photographer 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Funchal Carros do Monte 2016 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 17:12:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a nice idea but execution is lacking in my opinion. I feel the context is missing because the vehicle the photographer is sitting on is not in the frame, so we as the viewers are sort of lost where we are here. Secondly, the three men closest are all blurred, but it doesn't look good IMO because the ground is not blurred enough to suggest any significant speed, so it looks (!) like camera shake blur. Composition is also not the best with the two men left and right cut off, although the overal symmetry is nice. The scene has potential, a wider angle lens would have helped a lot here. Also, there are noticeable CAs on the white clothes and the rope. – LucasT 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think Lucas said most of it, there are also the leaning verticals and the overexposed areas on the white clothes. The men pulling are also in the zones of a photo where focus tends to be less good than in the middle of the pic. --cart-Talk 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 20:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination.--Karelj (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 09:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info This noisy hornbill can only be found in the North East corner of Uganda and the North West corner of Kenya. All created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose over-processed maybe trying remove background noise resulting in a dropshadow effect in the beak border (I added a note) IMHO and maybe I'm wrong, you applied a noise reduction in background dividing in layers the bird and the background for apply a Gaussian blur in the background, however, in the low layer (a copy of the front layer) there is the bird that now is showed like a dropshadow in the current image. My suggestion is apply a simply noise reduction in the background but not dividing in layers. Also too space on image top. BTW It's a beautiful image and remember me another nomination --The Photographer 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would prefer to see nature/wildlife photos not photoshopped to blur the background. It is very hard to do convincingly. The edges are a bit obvious. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Colin, it could be allowed, however, using a better technique. IMHO. Take a look to for example. The problem come when you are changing colors or you are using some layer denoise technique and not a specialized denoise tool like neat image. --The Photographer 14:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks more than just denoising. More like trying to increase the background bokeh blur. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Well it was exactly what I was telling you, please, take a look to the image source too. I removed it because it was distracting, however, now I don't know if it's acceptable. What do you think?. Thanks --The Photographer 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with the above, has the look of one of those "artistic" Photoshop filters which is never a good thing. Detail on the bird is nice though. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Aside from the badly executed blurring/whatever already mentioned, I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low. Sharpness otherwise as great as we've come to expect from Sharp Photo. --cart-Talk 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Badly executed blurring. edit: No with the new versions uploaded, I come to wonder what caused the drop shadow that partly caused all the oppose votes. – LucasT 19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment @The Photographer, Colin, Juliancolton, Lucasbosch, W.carter:@Milseburg, INeverCry: I never mind constructive criticism, and there is clearly a drop shadow which could be removed by reprocessing. I may be sensitive, but I do resent all these incorrect assumptions about my processing and your suggestions of blurring. As Commons does not allow a direct upload of the .CR2 file from my camera, I have uploaded the RAW file saved as a .jpg with absolutely no processing. Do please have a look. Charles (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for uploading that unprocessed file for comparison. Please be assured that I never meant to personally criticize your editing techniques. I did believe that some kind of extensive manipulation had been done to produce the hazy borders, but I see now that was not the case. Taking a closer look, it's a similar effect to what I've noticed on my own relatively high-ISO images from older crop-sensor cameras. The end result is the same, though, and I'm very much in agreement with Cart's comments about the composition. Even if it isn't quite what we look for in an FP, it's still a remarkable image. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I assumed from The Photographer's comments on Gaussian blur that you'd applied a very strong blur. Certainly the margin between the bird feathers and the background was rough and demonstrated detail the background did not have at all -- but it seems this was just noise. So while you haven't blurred it to increase the background bokeh blur, you've certainly blurred it far beyond the necessary for noise reduction. To the point where the background got posterised and artificially plastic looking, and the bird looked crudely Photoshopped onto it. I'm afraid this just adds further to my complaint about reviewers who pixel peep -- it not only causes people to downsize unnecessarily, or to leave, but also to clumsily blur images when there was in fact nothing much wrong with the noise levels. The degree of noise in your "direct from raw" would probably diminish if you applied a sharpening mask to the default sharpening used by Lightroom or ACR. Then only a smidgen of luminance NR might help. Really, we are ruining perfectly good pictures in order to satisfy people who look at pixels rather than pictures. Fullscreen on a 220dpi monitor, the noise here is barely visible, certainly not troublesome, and the image wonderfully sharp. I would like us to reach a point where the amount of noise here, on a 20MP image raised no oppose votes at all, much like a small degree of CA or a couple of barely visible dust spots shouldn't be a reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Colin that there is nothing wrong with the background in the "straight from RAW photo". That looks natural and perfectly fine no need for any extra work. There is no strange shadow around the beak either. Still not enough neck on the bird for my taste though. ;) Since I've learned more about post-processing after hanging out here at FPC, I don't go as heavy on the NR as before. Most NR on backgrounds can ruin the authentic feel of a photo. --cart-Talk 23:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your courage to upload the original photo and accept our criticism with maturity. I uploaded a version applied noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself --The Photographer 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the others on the amount of noise in the raw file - very minor and no bar to a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because 6 opposes already in the first day - not much chance of this nomination succeeding Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

lNeverCry 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@INeverCry: I think you may have applied fpx too hastily and not in accordance with the FPC rules. You may have been influenced by the 'herd instinct' votes and you have not given me the opportunity to upload a new version. Charles (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles, actually, I think it would be best if you closed/withdrew this nom and started a new one of the new version of the photo. You know with the "/2" thing you can read about on the COM:FPC right above the nomination box. That way you can start with a clean slate and don't have to ping everybody, etc. --cart-Talk 11:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. People can then oppose on the basis of the tight crop etc. if they want. Anyone volunteering to process my RAW file (which I can mail)?

  I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Met rijp bedekte katjes van een els (Alnus) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 06:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Betulaceae.
  •   Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment another great example of highly reduced, modern Dutch still lifes! :-) I'd suggest to adapt the white balance to the wintery scenery though - here it appears much too warm. An ice-cold blueish hue could further underline the intended mood, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The grayish white appearance of the photo is sufficiently frosty for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think it would be FPC sharpness even if white balance/tone sorted. -- Charlesjsharp 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition isn't wowing me. Agree the light looks too warm. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I don't mind the WB, but composition is somewhat lacking. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. WB. correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin and Julian regarding the composition. lNeverCry 20:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative, another versionEdit


  •   Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus).--Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, I like this one, too, but I'm not sure why the people who don't support the other version would support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (By the way, English word order would be "Catkins of alder (Alnus) covered with hoarfrost". English may be at base a Germanic language, but our grammar is very different from German, Dutch, and I suppose Frisian.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support also ok! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't find it special enough for FP. The subject is centered in the frame and it provides no wow for me. It's a beautiful sight in nature but the photograph is not impactful IMO. – LucasT 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Still per Colin and Julian. Unexciting composition. lNeverCry 17:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Any photograph like this of a planet in our solar system is going to have a high degree of uniqueness, though I'm not blown away by this one. The colors are nice, though the resolution and detail isn't anything special, especially when compared to other similar photos of planets, like this one of Pluto from 2015. Sorry. WClarke 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would   Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support agree that resolution leaves quite a bit to be desired, but stunning nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Dull lighting, no wow for me. Also per WClarke. Yes, it's special because of the subject, but as a non-expert this is not interesting to look at. I find this falls into the category of the more boring planet photos and I would gladly support the more exciting ones out there. – LucasT 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could do a good service if you can find some higher-quality NASA photos of the entire planet of Mars and upload them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – LucasT 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several big Mars photos on NASA pages (1 2 3) , but how do we know if they are free? --cart-Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.
I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment shame about the people. Charles (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Generally well-done, but as a slightly unsharp (especially the left edge) 7 MP image with no mitigating factors or the feeling of "wow, we have to promote this even if the quality is a bit lower than usual." -- King of ♠ 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH --PtrQs (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King. Seems to me that the image might have had some serious overexposure on the building which was brought under control at the cost of looking overprocessed (something about the blue in the sky doesn't strike me the right way). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it; the composition is good and the path with people walking up and down reminds me of a picture book -- Thennicke (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support no pseudo sharpness visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 15:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sish Mahal, Jodhpur Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 05:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Below the level of sharpness we typically expect of interior FPs. Overall I think the lighting is unbalanced; the bottom is a bit too dark for the composition to work in my mind. -- King of ♠ 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, essentially per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per above comments, also incomplete nomination. Yann (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •   I withdraw my nomination

File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 22:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
  •   Info A new Philips Series 7000 shaver head, photographed in the style of a promotional image. All by me -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 35 frames... great! --Ralf Roleček 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, but I must point out that there are a few minor blurry spots on edges and overlaps, because I spend some time retouching my recent own stacks correcting these things. – LucasT 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ...and sufficiently clean too. This is one piece of machinery you don't want a dirty close-up of! ;) The surface lends itself very nicely to such a photo. --cart-Talk 22:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just one little thing that could be corrected: Down center there are two places where you can see some flesh-toned reflections, probably from you. It would look nicer if those were in grey tones instead. --cart-Talk 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Cart, Lucas: I've updated a new version with the reflection removed and the blurred areas fixed with sharper frames. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Frank. I'm a wet shave man myself, though with more modern technology than your link :-). My wife thinks I'm completely bonkers, spending the evening in the kitchen taking dozens of photos of my son's shaver. I showed her the result and she said: "It's a shaver. So?" *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great texture. -- King of ♠ 00:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot! I guess I´m gonna have to learn focus stacking :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Enthusiastic support Utterly stunning result! Was it really necessary to shoot 36 frames? What's the (average) DoF of each image? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per everyone else - really impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice shoot and professional and I think that your quality is improving Diliff Colin. Clean and perfect, I added a note to let more space there --The Photographer 12:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer, I'll check but I'm pretty sure I have no more of the image at the bottom, to change the crop. I agree I could have included a bit more when I took the photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you should do it again because the image is already done, however, it's a minor problem --The Photographer 12:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:*  Question why, Daniel? I'm really interested because you also had the option not to vote at all. I understand that overly technical pics tend to polarize more than other subjects. Something along that line? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Martin, I suspect the reason has nothing to do with this nomination, just me. So would appreciate any comment by Daniel unrelated to this nom, be made on Martin's or Daniel's talk page. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe he's not sure if support or oppose for some wow raison. --The Photographer 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No doubt FP. --Pugilist (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – LucasT 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition but the blown highlights on the surf and building are too much ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky does not really impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – LucasT 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tomas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't decided how or even whether to vote on this photo, but in some ways, I prefer several of your other photos of the Kotel to this one: File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7689.jpg has a satisfying near-rectilinearity as compared to this one's slant, and I like the motion of the men walking toward the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7691.jpg, which concentrates on the women's section, shows the pitchers for the blessing on washing, putting the wall in a different context, though there's a dust spot that should be cleaned toward the right above the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7690.jpg shows men praying and touching the wall from an appealing angle. None of the photos are perfect and all can be critiqued, but all are good and different. However, compared to the others, I can't think of anything that strikes me about this one as special. So that's likely to result in either a non-vote or a mild oppose vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas; a very static image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is not a bad raw material for a great photo. I think that a crop would give it a much more forceful look, the angle and the wide floor makes it a bit touristy. See note. I downloaded it and tried it, it came out very nice. Try it. Anyone else agree? --cart-Talk 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Good eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7543.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a well executed photo and a worthy QI, but it misses the wow factor for FP status. You might find the sight interesting and impactful but the photo doesn't bring this out for me I'm afraid. – LucasT 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - Could be a bit sharper, but the composition works for me. I like the contrast of the Cimitero Monumentale with the modern buildings to its right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. It seems the building is cut in half at left. Yann (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I only mildly support this photo, and there's no argument with "no wow", but what do you find overly complex about this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: If you imagine the flower bed and empty driveway/whatever space at the bottom cropped out, along with some of the left (maybe I'll have to make it in a note), you get an image with a lot more harmonious vertical forms, and the similarity I noted is more evident. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. See what I mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Arguably less interesting, but yes, also simpler, and I do see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:RPM abstract at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
  •   Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – LucasT 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course...   lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gibraltar Barbary Macaques BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info all by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stunning image and I feel it has FP potential. I have two problems: 1. It looks a bit soft, I would sharpen it more, there is detail to be revealed in the fur. 2. the powerlines cable car cables are distracting, sadly. I saw that they are easy to remove, and I did it for fun. Feel free to nominate this as an alternative if you like it, or if you allow I can nominate it myself:
     LucasT 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is an FP as is. The power lines don't disturb me at all; they're part of the deliberately somewhat unsharp but sufficiently clear urban background. The slight softness of the monkeys is just that - slight softness. I wouldn't object to judicious sharpening, but I think they're quite clear enough, as this is not a species-identification photo but a touching urban scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables are probably a cable car, not power lines, but it is better without them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – LucasT 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables don't bother me since they follow the composition of the monkeys but there is room for a bit more light in the photo. The name of the file should also be fixed since it doesn't mention the main motif, the macaques. --cart-Talk 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll   Support it, hoping that it might turn out a bit brighter. ;) It is such great image otherwise. --cart-Talk 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The face of the left hand animal is blurred and I don't like the cables, nor the lighting. Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support We can discuss the technical and compositional issues all we want, but the fact for me is that I can't get past that pose. I think we already know what the 2017 PotY will be, based on how the public votes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:River Narmada from Maheshwar Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Oppose Too dark Ezarateesteban 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)   Neutral let´s wait Ezarateesteban 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think the chosen composition and lighting work perfectly here. There are "precedents" btw., cf. this great image, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is great, and to me the whole point is that we're viewing a river and the opposite bank from a dark place, through its beautiful decorations. This is one case in which reducing the darkness would also reduce the magic (or if you prefer, the effect). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The windows make a beautiful frame to let you look out - and I think to lighten this darkness would spoil this frame. --PtrQs (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support to me the Darkness is nice, better than HDR. --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A very poetic triptych, HDR would totally ruin it. --cart-Talk 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would have included the shadows more. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The concept of framing is a nice idea, but the scene through the frame is too mundane, and not interesting. Foreground shadows should not look this dark, and should have a little detail -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Without the dark foreground the lights falling on the ground won't look that beautiful IMHO. The contrast here is helping create a mood. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Sumanta. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wouldn't necessarily object to a little more shadow detail, but full tone mapped HDR? No way. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ostankino Tower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info The Ostankino TV Tower in Moscow. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very good, but I see 2 dust spots near the upper left corner and 1 on the left side lower down in the sky that need to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I removed all dust spots. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Apart from those dust spots I see a slight bending / CCW-tilt. Repairing this would significantly raise your chances. Having seen your picture in QI, I expected to find it here in the FP candidates ... --PtrQs (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but per PtrQs. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The reflection of the tower extends gracefully into the fallen leaves below. -- King of ♠ 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - There might still be some very light dust spots, but if so, they're so light I'm not sure I see them. This is good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I wish that wedge of sidewalk or whatever wasn't there at the lower left, and the sky still looks a little spotty, but nicely done otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--g. balaxaZe 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Pena National Palace. Sintra, Portugal. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great shot - unfortunately it's not up to the technical standards expected here, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, but the things that actually bother me somewhat about this photo are, in order, the unsharp evergreens that take up most of the foreground and the hazy grayish background. Yes, the palace could be clearer, too, but if it were 100% sharp, I still would be unlikely to support a feature if the foreground and background were identical to what's there now. I'd encourage you to take more photos in better light without unsharp foreground trees (or at least fewer of them) if you make another trip to Sintra. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Entrance on Sonnenstrasse, Munich, February 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 07:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
  •   Info Entrance to building on Sonnenstraße 15, Munich; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really excellent application of abstract techniques in modern architecture, and a fine picture. This stands out to me as particularly good, even among FP candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Als Münchnerin - ja! --Schnobby (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 09:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality (but can you scrape the chewing gum off?) Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and per Charles if possible. --cart-Talk 10:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info OK, I've swept the floor a bit - but I still wouldn't eat off it ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice unsymmetric symmetry! Unfortunately the NR is a bit visible. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support though the NR is so strong that it almost looks like it came from a compact camera; sufficient quality nonetheless. -- King of ♠ 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others although we maybe have a copyright issue here (no FoP for building interiors in Germany). --Code (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Many, if not most interiors on Commons may turn out to be problematic one way or the other. I don't know if that's a "mitigating factor" in my "case" but technically I didn't even leave public ground to take this picture... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, you know whom to call just in case ... --Code (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimla night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info -- Perched on a hillside Shimla is the current capital and largest city of the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Previously it was capital of the Indian state of Punjab and, before independence, the summer capital of British India. Shimla is a major tourist destination owing to the large number of colonial buildings, temples, churches in the city, the UNESCO World Heritage Kalka-Shimla Railway, and the mild subtropical highland climate. All by me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo! So this is where the shot the backdrop for Blade Runner. --cart-Talk 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support After some days of waiting for the next wow - this is it! --PtrQs (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive night photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even though all the details are visible, the overall impression is too dark. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, KoH, but I have long contended that magic hour pictures are not the only way to shoot night pictures and, depending on the scene, might not even be the best. I guess we agree to disagree on this point. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture for such a dark and humid night. How long was the exposure? WClarke 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1s + 4s + 15s, iso 200, f/8. Overall it's pretty close to the 4 sec exposures. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely colors and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Totally loved it. Great execution. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lanchonete frente da praça da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 12:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 12:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Request although the pillar in the left is vertical, I feel a disturbing CCW tilt in this pic. Can this be fixed? --PtrQs (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy, lacks clear main subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea, but framing the photo with the menu and the green fruits is not doing the photo any favors, shielding the viewer from the shop. It would have been better if you had taken one step further in and shot just the area with the chairs around the counter. --cart-Talk 18:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support to me the framing works well.--Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposes. To me, a classic example of a picture that saw a lot to do and tried to do it all. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments and votes. I see that the problem is the quantity of distracting elements and the blurred coconuts --The Photographer 14:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Iridescent clouds during snowfall 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
  •   Info Rainbow-colored/iridescent clouds during a snowfall over Lysekil, Sweden. The fringes of the clouds are so thin the water droplets in them produce rainbows. The photo is taken during some interesting weather in the afternoon so it is the sun you see and the dots are snowflakes. All by me -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment My first thought was that maybe that's what happened last night in Sweden but then I saw the timestamp so we will have to do some more research. Regarding the picture I find it very good compositionally so   Support from my side. --Code (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Moody and interesting. I like how the blotchy clouds over the disc of the sun sort of imitate the lunar maria. Or maybe that's just me, who knows? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is certainly a good photo, though I haven't decided yet whether to support a feature for it, but I prefer File:Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall.jpg, which has more snow and the dark trees as a dramatic contrast with the sky. Just sky is not quite as striking to me and gives me less grounding, literally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that pic very much too. Unfortunately, I think the cut sun in that will make it a no-go for the folks here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? I didn't realize there were objections to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you can stay out of the cold for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, just moon with clouds. --Karelj (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So sorry, but it is the sun. :) --cart-Talk 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, it is a sun. Sorry, but in such a case it is even more "common" image. --Karelj (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Then you are very lucky to live in a place where such scenery is common and you can go out and take photos like this of iridescent clouds around the sun any day. How I envy you, it must be beautiful. It is not so common here. --cart-Talk 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: This image is far from common. He's just trying to save face and clearly failing to do so. We men often feel the need to defend our egos in this way...   lNeverCry 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 10:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is not a FP, sorry, and to me it isn't an QI, either. The lighting is not good, the head is in shadow. Sharpness overall is acceptable but in the head below the bar, sorry. Poco2 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Picture taken early morning, actual lighting, got the feather details sharp so thought of nominating, is there a requirement that any particular parts should be sharp for birds for being nominated to be FP, i meant like head as mentioned in previous comment? Deepugn (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. Sometimes, people have gotten away with the tail being unsharp, but not the head, and you should sign your post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment thank you, wanted to get the feedback, i hope you agreed with the lighting comment also. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want feedback, you should ask for that at Commons:Photography critiques or submit your photos to COM:QIC first where you will get that. FPC is for the finished photos, even if some things are changed here during discussions. When you present a photo here, it should already be as good as you can possibly get it. And as Ikan said; please sign your posts. --cart-Talk 11:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, i never knew about the critiques thing, think that will be a good place for my need. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. This had possibilities—the colors are nice, the light is appropriately soft—but the pose complicated things, and unfortunately that includes the DoF, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because four opposes, only one support (nominator) and four days without participation Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Larnaca 01-2017 img37 LCA Airport.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the long depth of field and the decorations (structural elements?) on the ceiling, and the light is pretty good for an airport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motive, well balanced and implemented. The contrasts of warm and cold give the image a special touch. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Sharpness overall just ok, nice ceiling, the rest nothing wild, too dark overall Poco2 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination. I for myself hesitated to suggest it, as I know airports with much more interesting iteriors. On the other hand, the picture is QI and it is almost impossible to create *perfect* photos of airport interiors, because, unlike Diliff's and Code's churches, they are never empty of people ;) -A.Savin 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Our churches are often busy, we just twist the truth by being highly selective about when to click the shutter. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too boring for me. No wow. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Draceane – LucasT 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Having taken a similar picture that is one of the QI examples now used for "depth of field", I salute this image as exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Бандери 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 19:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done The tilt has been fixed so that the first tower is now centred.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, the tilt is not fixed. It is titled about 2.15° CCW. The clouds at the horizon should be horizontal. And as the power line poles are most probably vertical, there is also perspective distortion. I made a tentative correction, but it should preferably be down from RAW: File:Бандери 2015 (edit).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending correction pointed out by Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Facade of the Palace Hotel, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Since walls like this are used to test lenses for distortion, I can't help but notice it isn't perfectly regular. Do you have a lens profile you can apply in your raw conversion software? Have you considered making a b&w version -- the lighting isn't a feature here, nor the sky interesting, and you are left with a study of patterns and form, which works well in b&w. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have the lens distortion profile. I have either forgotten to apply it or there is some residual perspective distortion on the left side. Anyhow, the distortion is extremely small, much less than Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg which has several supports even though it has a large amount of barrel distortion, especially visible in the bottom corners. Compared to that nomination, this photo also has similar lighting and a vastly more architecturally significant, interesting building. dllu (t,c) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm just being picky. Not an oppose reason. I haven't really decided if there's enough wow here for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I've just replaced the image with the version with lens correction profiles. It should be well corrected now. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring. Charles (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


  •   Info Monochrome version. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Crosswalk of Market at Third, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Absolutely YES! KennyOMG (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't get what's featurable about this. It's a crosswalk with some lines in the street. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I nominated this picture because, in my opinion, the strong diagonal lines gives a striking geometric quality to the iamge. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not exactly Shibuya crossing. The grey overcast weather and the lack of traffic or pedestrians mean this photo doesn't have the necessary spark or life. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I intentionally selected this image out of dozens to have less traffic. It is too visually cluttered to have this intersection full of random cars. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The shapes and lines make this image very appealing, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shapes and lines. The light gives the photo a gritty NYPD Blue feeling. Not all FPs need to be some manicured Technicolor version of Legoland. --cart-Talk 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not my point at all. Gritty can be good, but it's very hard for the mundane to wow me. This doesn't look like New York to me, though: We haven't had any trolleys for decades (since the 1950s, I think - my parents remembered them but they didn't exist in my lifetime). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think hisher point was more about the aesthetic of NYPD Blue rather than literally being in New York itself. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That would be her point. But NYPD Blue was about New York, not San Francisco. As a New Yorker who's also spent a good deal of time in San Francisco, I'm probably too close to both objects to really be able to understand the broad scope of what she means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Who's 'she', the cat's mother?   Well, dllu you are absolutely right. I was talking about the feel of a city you get when you watch that TV-show. Ikan, you are taking things far too literary sometimes. I know that I should refrain from speaking metaphorically when describing the mood in photos, but sometimes it is what best describes the feeling I get for a pic. Have you ever been to a wine tasting Ikan? At such events they can speak of the the wine's "nutty flavor with earthy tones and a hint of licorice" to describe the taste of the wine even though there are no nuts, soil or licorice in the actual wine. Using films, songs and TV-series to describe moods in photos work along the same line. Also, please keep in mind that I'm Swedish, and even though I've been to both New York and San Francisco and know they are two very different cities, to me this photo (and NYPD Blue) simply looks "American". I'm sure you could make the same sort of generalization wrt Stockholm and Gothenburg, and simply see them as "Swedish" even if trams are more common in Gothenburg. --cart-Talk 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't been to Sweden yet. But you basically said the same thing as I: I'm too close to the objects to see the panoramic view you see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed a very different take, one that made me stop and take notice when I was scrolling through new nominations. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment You have to give a reason for opposing. Is being different the reason for the oppose? dllu (t,c) 20:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry ... I had meant to type support. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a messy composition. Charles (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful photograph. WClarke 20:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't why....but i like the composition,isn't messy for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Super interesting perspective and composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 16:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All be me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry - generically pretty countryside, but this composition doesn't make much of an impression on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I kind of like it, but I think the impact of the pathway would be better if the photo was cropped just where it ceases to be seen (+ a clean cut between the trees). That way it looks like it went on forever. I'll make a note. --cart-Talk 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion W.carter, but I don't know... it's true that the image is more centered on the subject, and this is not a bad idea but this change not a lot the image, so I prefer to keep the space and this aspect ratio Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Oh well, you can't get everything in life. :) It's a good pic anyway. --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Composition, light, landscape - everything is beautiful here. The DoF could be somewhat better but I know that's getting difficult at 70mm. Nice lens, btw. --Code (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, although cart's suggested crop couldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 16:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely composition with the bridge and the river in parallel,more the sunset light. Adorable. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Japan tea ceremony 1165.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 13:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There are some very minor flaws in this, but taken as a whole, the photo is serene and simply beautiful! -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Also a powerful reminder of my own inability to sit in seiza for more than 2 minutes ;) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Dull light. Maybe the specialness of this photo is lost on me, but what I see is a very dark bokehish background to a drably lit scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Serene, yes, and I love the color, but those three red things in the back make it a little too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support @Ikan. You were right. I changed some things a bit which didn´t find perfect.--Ermell (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: Thanks for the fixing. The 'ping' system doesn't work the same way here as it does on Twitter (the way you wrote just "@Ikan") so I will ping him here (@Ikan Kekek:) in the way that will get him the message. Look at the code in the editing window and you will see how it is done. --cart-Talk 15:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better. Moderate   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the best quality, but good composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:12 Abu'l Hasan Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 08:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Abu'l Hasan - uploaded by Eugene a - nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, but to my understanding, this photo should be deleted from Commons. See the "rights statement" here: "Copyright with museum". And if you click "terms of use", you'll see that only non-commercial use is allowed without special permission: "To request images and rights for commercial use, please contact To request images and rights for the press, please contact For full legal details, please see the Smithsonian’s terms of use for digital assets." Since Commons uses a Creative Commons Copyleft that enables free commercial or non-commercial use with credit, these terms are not compatible with this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    This is covered by {{PD-ART}}. The WMF's position is "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". These sites try to be greedy with their licensing, but Commons offers them the middle-finger salute. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice to see something different. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - INeverCry, thanks for talking me through that. I guess more knowledgeable legal minds than I have examined U.S. laws and casework and determined that a lawsuit by the Smithsonian wouldn't be successful. That being the case: Judging the photo on its merits, it is unsurprisingly an excellent photo, and this is a beautiful Mughal painting in very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ikan Kekek that is in many museums, wannabe "copyright". If this is from 1620 no question about legal right. Wondering how can museums etc are allowed to put such "copyright notice". Its not legal, but i saw many. --Mile (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The copyright is on the photograph, not the artwork itself. Art photography is a real skill, as we all know. The question of whether the copyright has the force of law is the one I don't know the answer to, but haven't some art photographers sued on the basis that their work was being used without any kind of royalties or even credit being given? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: The biggest threatened lawsuit Commons has encountered was from the NPG London (see User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage). WMF backed up Derrick and said they didn't consider Sweat of the brow an acceptable policy and were confident a suit by the NPG would be unsuccessful in the US. This came after a mass transfer of NPG images by Derrick, who is based in the bay area. A British citizen or company might not have fared so well against the NPG. lNeverCry 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photoEdit

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I will duly   Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haßberge Scheune 5153908.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some weeks ago on QI. I like this colourful image and I hope that six or seven more persons like it, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice! --cart-Talk 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The town where I come 90 % of the houses look like this, I'm only explaining why it's not wow for me. --The Photographer 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of the building is hidden and if that was intentional, the idea doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It was the "yin and yang" pattern of the green and yellow around the building that struck me as significant. This is the sort of photo where you can choose to see the center or the surroundings. --cart-Talk 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very good image! Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - With blocks of almost solid color, I don't find that this picture is really that rewarding to move my eye around (you could think of it this way: it lacks the linear arabesque that I like to see in 2D static visual art, which gives it a feeling of dynamism). That said, if the yellow flowers were only beyond the house, I think the pure visual impact of that division would cause the photo to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Comercio en la plaza del 9 de abril de 1947, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 77.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Grocery and grocery shop in the April 9th 1947 Square, better known as Grand Socco, Tangier, Morocco. All by me, Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I wasn't wowed until I opened this at full size and smelled the spices and the musty old wood in the shop. :) --cart-Talk 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice documentary work --The Photographer 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor lighting and composition - just look at the red thing in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per cart and The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles, poor light conditions. No FP for me. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Barely   Oppose - I'm really torn because this is a good portrait of a shopkeeper at his store, and the light conditions are what they are and give the photo a realism I can accept. But what really distracts me is precisely the red plastic thing in front. It spoils the symmetry of the spice bins. In the end, as much as I like this photo, when I think about whether it's really one of the best photos on the site, I reluctantly demur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment So, when a photographer barges into a store in Tangier, he should bring his own lighting equipment and ask the owner to rearrange the items in the shop so that the photo will be more aesthetically pleasing for a bunch of picky westerners, rather than documentary? --cart-Talk 13:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course not, but if you were to barge into a store and take a snap-shot, don't expect to become an FP. 11:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - High-quality work with plenty of illustrative value. One little plastic device at the edge of the frame can't ruin the whole thing. Real life, alas, isn't always tidy or "symmetrical." –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Montes de Vitoria - Quercus ilex 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done I should have seen this, sorry. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --PtrQs (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful lighting and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice one. --Code (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice image, though I would crop 15% off the bottom and 5% off the top. Charles (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer it, Thanks. Charles (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Charles, I've compared both version again and think you're right, your crop suggestion looks more interesting. Thanks for the advice. Anyway, like this nomination has almost ended, I think it doesn't make sense to restart it again. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Tree against landscape ... doesn't always work as well as we'd like to think when taking the picture, but this time it does. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Smog nad Nową Rudą.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 15:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good documentation of an unnatural phenomenon, but not so beautiful, in my opinion. I think that "Nowa Ruda, view with smog" might be a good scope for a VI nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I changed category. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Actually, it is a natural phenomenon—see temperature inversion. I've seen it often in winter in similar situations, usually a bluish haze over some ski village where a lot of fireplaces are being used. This looks to me almost like coal was being burned in a lot of the village? Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Inversions are a natural phenomenon, but smog is not. Now, if this were a picture of vog (volcanic fog) over the Big Island of Hawaii, that would be a different story. Of course that's a side point. You and the others are wowed by the picture, and that's what counts most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: It's fair to say that the smog is an unnatural phenomenon resulting from the naturally occurring inversion layer. Whatever. You're right that the only thing the matters is that we like or don't like the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Weld Jallaba Show 06.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 11:00:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, I'll support this as soon as eyes and crop are fixed. --cart-Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree with cart. This would be a good example of "rear-curtain sync" in the Flash synchronization article on WP. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Waiting on the eyes to be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you IssamBarhoumi for fixing the eyes but there is still too much dark space above the dancer's head for my taste. It needs to be cropped. --cart-Talk 10:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's fine now. These things should have been taken care of at QIC, but things do get missed there from time to time. --cart-Talk 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very interesting: You captured motion in a still photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea, but the face is not sharp enough - and the whites of the eyes are still red. Charles (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Industrilandskapet Norrköping February 2017.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 09:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info The river Motala ström and the historic industrial district (known as Industrilandskapet) in Norrköping, Sweden. Industrilandskapet is a well-preserved industrial area, the industrial development started in the 17th century and carried on through to the middle of the 20th century, and a number of woollen spinning mills and cotton factories were established.
  • Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can't help thinking that this would have been better in color, the buildings are not interesting enough for a BW conversion. --cart-Talk 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Mild support I too wonder what a color version would look like, but in grayscale I'm just blown away by the perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive view. I think the b/w conversion works well in this case although I'm also curious how the coloured version looks like. --Code (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be interested to see a color version, but in my case, I think it's an idle curiosity, as I'm happy to accept the photo as is. I think using black & white helps accentuate the industrial character of the buildings and the industrial use of the watercourse. And what makes the photo special to me is the long depth of field looking down the watercourse and the plunging reflections of every structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:The triumph of french painting The apotheosis of Poussin,Le Sueur and Le Brune - Louvre.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 08:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Neutral Excellent painting art work, however, the quality of this shot doesn't honor to the painting. Satured colors that result in too yellow temperature, lack of details (Have you tried build it from the RAW? and not use just the camera internal building). Also extreme lens distortion in corners, a common problem already commented an others nominations. Btw, Remember that it's only MHO --The Photographer 11:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I sincerely don't understand what you mean for "MHO". --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment On colors and the details even don't answer because it is personal matter, on "distortions" I'll note that it is a roof is curved there some problems to straighten it, like this[6]. Thank you --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are someone's fingers near the right lower corner --PtrQs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

*  Oppose per PtrQs --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   DonePtrQs,Martin Falbisoner I honestly do not ever put an opposition to something that is easily solved, however, each one has its own way. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing that; I'm also fine with the tighter crop. Of course I'll   Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my intervention, but as those ghostly fingers were still fumbling at this QI, I couldn't ignore them     Support --PtrQs (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment PtrQs i don't said that you must ignore,simply ask to resolve and not oppose. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sun 19 Feb → Fri 24 Feb
Mon 20 Feb → Sat 25 Feb
Tue 21 Feb → Sun 26 Feb
Wed 22 Feb → Mon 27 Feb
Thu 23 Feb → Tue 28 Feb
Fri 24 Feb → Wed 01 Mar

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

Wed 15 Feb → Fri 24 Feb
Thu 16 Feb → Sat 25 Feb
Fri 17 Feb → Sun 26 Feb
Sat 18 Feb → Mon 27 Feb
Sun 19 Feb → Tue 28 Feb
Mon 20 Feb → Wed 01 Mar
Tue 21 Feb → Thu 02 Mar
Wed 22 Feb → Fri 03 Mar
Thu 23 Feb → Sat 04 Mar
Fri 24 Feb → Sun 05 Mar

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

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

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2017), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2017.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.