Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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

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

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

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

VotingEdit

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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Above all, be politeEdit

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

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

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

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

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

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Red-backed shrike.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 19:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Skočivir (Скочивир, Македонија).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 15:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Panorama of village Skočivir, Republic of Macedonia. My work. -- Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks overexposed ... that's easily fixed and I'd probably support it for QI after that, but as for FP the light doesn't really wow me.--Peulle (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Sankt-Joergens-See -- 2017 -- 1455.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 15:11:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 15:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special. The bush on the left side is very disturbing. Sharpness too low. --Hockei (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was just thinking the same thing.--Peulle (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Munich - Viktualienmarkt.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 14:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Spb 06-2017 img19 Moskovsky railway station.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 13:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Montevideo, playa pocitos.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 13:06:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Looking up the center of the Eiffel Tower 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 11:01:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice picture with an interesting composition. But Commons FPC is for outstanding pictures. And unfortunately for you, we have a large number of very similar images already (1, 2, 3 to name just a few in 1:1 aspect ratio; another FP). There are some that manage to stand out among the others, such as this night view, this diagonal composition or this zoomed-in VI. I don't see this candidate standing out in any kind of way, apart from some advantages in image quality maybe. Others have done it before, the wow is gone – that's the problem with FPs of major tourist attractions. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "View to a kill." -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ruppell's warbler.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 09:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Close wing position of Female Lethe chandica Moore, 1857 – Angled Red Forester.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 05:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   InfoClose wing position of Female Lethe chandica chandica (Moore, 1857) – Darjeeling Angled Red Forester created by Atudu - uploaded by Atudu - nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Atudu (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice and sharp, but looks a bit underexposed. --Ivar (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment the foreground is a bit of a problem and the red eye. Charles (talk)

File:Close wing position of Charaxes solon, Fabricius, 1793 – Black Rajah WLB.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 05:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Speciale voertuigen worden ingezet voor onderhoud in het gebied. (Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper) Locatie Noarderleech 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 04:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper.
  •   Info Special vehicles are used for maintenance in the area. (Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper) Location: Noarderleech. Noard Friesland Bûtendyks is a unique nature of It Fryske Gea. It consists of summer polders, drink dobben and salt marshes. For many birds an ideal habitat. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --fedaro (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting stuff--Mile (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Request Please reduce noise. Also, is that chroma noise I see on the tracks? Could something be done about that?--Peulle (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Aeronave A-29 Super Tucano em voo sobre a Floresta Amazônica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 02:13:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016-1122 Lower Manhattan Skyline from liberty Island By Frank Futia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 21:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per Ikan Kekek. Yann (talk) 16:46, 18 August 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.

File:Bensberg Germany Schloss-Bensberg-Panorama-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 19:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Bensberg Palace, a historical building in Bensberg near Cologne, Germany. It is a former Hunting Lodge, commissioned by Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine for his wife Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici. It was converted to a 5-Star Hotel in 1997. Cylindrical panorama from 11 single images, taken from a normal tripod.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Couldn't the viewpoint be much higher? We seem to be looking upwards. Charles (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
How? The tripod was extended to 1,80 m. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess the ground slopes up to the building. Charles (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - With the question of the slope apparently resolved, I focused on the photo, which looks like a great panorama to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not sure about the projection: the outer wings of the building appear as if they were curving outward. --El Grafo (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that this is the normal effect when taking such huge building with a wide angle lense and forming it to a cylindrical panorama. It covers a view of 180° degrees and the distance of the left and right wing is perhaps 50 m while the main entrance in the far is 100 m from the tripod. I am not an expert on 180° or 360 ° panorama photos but some colleagues here are and probably can give a suitable explanation, why this has to be as it is. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm supporting this image because I like it. No other reason. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Innenhafen -- 2017 -- 1699.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 18:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bombus lapidarius queen - Echium vulgare - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 17:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Luise_Rainer_-_1941.jpgEdit

 

Well, this has to be the best publicity photo I've ever seen in my life. Look how cute they made her! I was shocked when I saw the Luise Rainer page on Wikipedia. Just absolutely shocked. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi PseudoSkull and thank you for wanting to make a FPC nomination. Unfortunately this nomination was not made the right way. You can't just create a page with the nom name since it will then lack all the links, transcriptions and whatnots into the international system that is done automatically when you make a nom the right way. You need to ask for deletion of this page and do the nomination the right way by following the instruction on COM:FPC#Adding a new nomination. You might need help from an admin on this since the system is messed up by this faulty page creation.
Having said that, it is very unlikely that a nomination of this photo will be successful since the photo is much smaller than the 2Mpx limit here. --cart-Talk 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Incomplete nomination, too small anyway. Yann (talk) 18:39, 17 August 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.

File:Snow monkey baby milk time.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 14:21:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Helicophanta vesicalis 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 05:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 03:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful lighting and sky --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition and lighting. Charles (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Serene HalfGig talk 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose. I'm going to give you what I hope comes across as a high-level criticism, because the thing is, as others have said, this is indeed a beautiful picture, and the light is beautiful. However, the fields and sky are pretty inert (sure, the sky gradually gets darker going up, but that's not enough for a great composition in this case, in my opinion), so I think this photo lacks something that could make it better than merely quite good, but truly outstanding. It looks like I'm far outnumbered on this, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your helpful in-depth reviews are highly appreciated as usual, even if they end up in a mild oppose like in this case. I will think about all items you wrote at the next opportunity when I will be out there taking open-air photos. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same feeling as Ikan Kekek. Furthermore I find the light a bit harsh. All is nice, good, clear, very well composed, but I miss "something". Empty sky ? Enpty grass ? I don't know, this is just subjective and I'm sorry for that. And I've found one dust spot (at least), please see annotation. --Jebulon (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
*   Comment De gustibus non disputandum. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support But tight blue sky is a little bit for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Maria Gail Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 23:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - You're most welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing surroundings. --Karelj (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - I'm surprised. What are you finding disturbing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well I think I get his point. It's pretty cluttered and unbalanced because of the right pilar. - Benh (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for explaining your point of view. Of course we disagree about whether this is an FP photo of this altarpiece, but do you think it would be possible to take an FP of this altarpiece? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • mild   Support When you see this as a thumbnail I agree that it’s too cluttered but when you really look at it I see what Ikan sees. The whole photo is very complex and is excellently photographed. DoF is right on, it’s just that the other elements in the photo (except for the red rope and plant) subtract a bit. Lack of symmetry isn't a dealbreaker here for me. -- Sixflashphoto 20:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main subject is more than excellent, The picture and the work are very good with a lot of details. But yes, there are many surrounding disturbing elements. I've suggested a crop, which could make me support.--Jebulon (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) underside Bulgaria.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 17:28:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info This little butterfly (see thumbnail on right) lives at 2,300m above sea level at the top cable car station at the ski resort of Borovets in Bulgaria.
    All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support seen from a technical standpoint, there are some little issues (for example DoF control around the head). One could relativize that, as it is a tiny butterfly and a difficult one to shoot I guess. But what makes this picture FP for me is the composition. Beautiful. --Sputniktilt (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This was a difficult image from a technical standpoint. Being small you have to get very close, but it's windy at 2,300m so I needed 1/800. Charles (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - I agree with Sputniktilt, but Charles, does this meet your own standards of image quality for a butterfly, considering that you consistently argue in Consensual Review that pictures of insects without sharp heads should be declined, even if the picture is large? I'd like you to answer that before I vote, although left to my own devices, I would certainly normally vote to support this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, very much so. The sharpness of the hairs around the head is what I wanted to achieve. But I only have 2mm DoF available. I have two other images on different flowers, which I also considered to be FPC
  • I can't get the third photo to display, supposedly because of errors, though my browser sometimes crashes. Anyway, I   Support per others, my own opinion and your explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Parque Alameda, Santiago de Compostela, España, 2015-09-23, DD 56.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 20:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Faro, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 22-24 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 20:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info Lighthouse of Mahdia, Tunisia. -- Poco2 20:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 02:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no wow for me. --Karelj (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, mild   Oppose per Karelj - very good photo, excellent light, but most of the composition feels too pedestrian for FP to me, what with the concrete walls, cars, scrub, debris and dirt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC) I'm having second thoughts about this one because I like the light so much. I'll live with it longer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:20170815 Zalipie 5497 DxO.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 19:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Zalipie - a well and a cottage in the front of the Paintresses' House. All by me -- Jakubhal 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Jakubhal 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice - although a bit underexposed imo -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Please add the geo location. --XRay talk 18:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Someone added the geo info. HalfGig talk 23:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Relaxing composition, pretty painted designs, and it's nice to see something different from the usual FPC fare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe some pixellisation in the sky at top right, but per others.--Jebulon (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ----fedaro (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good and rare--Mile (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) - Cappella Cybo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 19:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info The Cybo or Saint Lawrence Chapel (Italian: Cappella Cybo or Cappella di San Lorenzo) is the second side chapel in the right-hand aisle of the Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. For the beauty of its paintings, the preciousness of marble revetments covering its walls and the importance of the artists involved in its construction the chapel is regarded one of the most significant sacral monuments erected in Rome in the last quarter of the 17th century. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The furthest back row of chairs is really distorted - the one furthest to the right looks so tilted it should fall over. If you cropped out the closest row of chairs, I think that would greatly improve the picture, and I'd probably vote to support it at that point, though I'd have to see to be positive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Better if centered IMO. Please look at annotation: too many useless and dark parts, to be cropped out.--Jebulon (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
      Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition for me. The left window is a little disturbing.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm still a little bothered by the remaining distortion to the appearance of the chairs, but I think I'm just looking for that too much now. The motif is beautiful, and I like how the speckled surfaces are captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Sa la crëusc sun Resciesa Gherdeina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 17:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bielerhöhe - Silvrettastausee - Wasserleitung 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 16:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is the wide-angle version of this image. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Much better than the narrow-angle version, in my opinion. In that photo, the mountains in the background looked sort of artificial, not natural. Here, they look real, with resulting great improvement to the composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I'm not seeing the "wow" factor. In general, on a cloudy day it makes for a better composition to exclude the sky altogether (which you did in the other version, which I supported). Here the sky is brighter than the ground, and exposing the whole scene properly (as you have done) makes the subject look grey and boring. While the sky is not completely featureless, the clouds are too soft to have a dramatic effect. -- King of ♠ 02:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.08.27.-19-Viernheimer Heide Viernheim--Brauner Grashuepfer-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 19:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Moon Bridge and Fountain, Friendship Pond 4 NBG LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 18:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Glad you like this one. I had to stand in the mud just several cm from the water to get this shot. The entire left side of the stream is useless as a spot to take a good photo of the bridge. PumpkinSky talk 21:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a better view of the bridge but the fountain is still ruining the composition IMO. Sorry. Light also a bit washed out in the upper part of the photo. Standing in a bit of mud still doesn't beat Jee who had leeches crawling on him during one shoot.   --cart-Talk 08:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment As mentioned in the other one, I find the juxtaposition of the fountain and bridge fascinating. As for the leeches, YUCK. I'll probably never top that one. Glad we don't have them where I live. I've uploaded a version where I tried to work on the upper light part you mention. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We'll just have to agree to disagree on this then. :) Upper part looks ok though now. --cart-Talk 10:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks washed out compared to the alt. -- King of ♠ 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit

Johann Jaritz has done an alternative processing. Right now I can't decide which one I like better. PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Your's is too little processing and his is too much IMO. Some 50/50 version might be better. Please try too do as much of this editing before you make a nom. This is not the place for fixing photos. --cart-Talk 12:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I did my processing. But we don't know what is or may be wrong until we get additional feedback. It's at QIC waiting for the bot and no one made suggestions there. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It was not my intention to bring disconcertment to the FPC. I was simply curious, if the photo could be edited in a way that it possibly meets the taste of W.carter and others. Another version was uploaded. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 

  •   Support -- With this modified version of his own modification, I'm now really having trouble deciding which is better, so I'm supporting both versions. PumpkinSky talk 13:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - I definitely prefer this version, but is that light really how it looked, or is the other one more true to life? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. So here's my dilemma: I would support this version and oppose the other, but I'm not sure if that makes sense if the other version is the truer one. In that case, maybe it's not justifiable to support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek I can certainly understand your position. Trying to be neutral, I looked again at the other photos I made of this bridge and the coloring in this alt nom version is consistent with how the bridge can with certain lighting. PumpkinSky talk 15:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per remarks above, with reservations but surely liking this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great colors. -- King of ♠ 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with KoH and Mr. Pumpkin. HalfGig talk 23:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.06.10.-02-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Scheckhorn-Distelbock.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 18:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support -- Pz (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 39 edits so far. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 08:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looking at it, I feel that this bug is getting prepared to fly away. A great, well composed picture. --Sputniktilt (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 50 shades of green! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Terrific photo, and I really like those striped antennae. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 23:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kathputli (Puppet)-IMG 0335.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 15:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Portnaluchaig beach.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 14:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*   Support -- Pz (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 39 edits so far. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 08:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry... I think waiting a few minutes (or hours or days) for the lighting to be more favorable on the foreground rocks would make it a more compelling photo. As is, to me they are distracting. The composition is also not compelling... perhaps a longer lens from further away would be better, but I'm not sure. As it is, we have a tiny house on some bright green grass with dark shadows in the foreground and my eye is struggling to find any wow. Storkk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Storkk. Also, too soft throughout ... was there a reason for using ISO 400? Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Daniel Case, thank's for your comments. The ISO 400 was simply to allow faster exposure (no tripod) and greater dof in the subdued late-evening Scottish daylight (20:29 UTC = 21:29 local time). DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand the tradeoff there. Daniel Case (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Montreal from Mount RoyalEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 13:13:22 (UTC)

  •   Info High resolution panorama of Montreal seen from Mount Royal. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice...--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice. PumpkinSky talk 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, our first FP from this year's Wikimania, already (And I suppose, since I was climbing Lyon Mountain, visible in the background right of center, at the time you took the daytime picture I'm in it in a weird way. The view from Lyon's summit was not clear enough to make out the Montreal skyline, alas, although I think I could see Mount Royal). Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Alexander Leisser (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! :D --Peulle (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! --cart-Talk 10:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --KSK (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Especially the night photo is about perfect, hardly any noise. --A.Savin 14:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Btw, some geocodes plus Template:Panorama with some details about how many photos were used would be nice. --cart-Talk 15:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Especially the night shot. The day time is also great , but has some visible stitching artifacts from (I think) two bad seams, that would be nice to correct. One seam is most visible at (8492, 1363) going about 212 pixels horizontally right. The other seam is more minor and looks like it affects (7378, 2147), (7431,2189), (7492, 2625), (7476, 2563). There is also some Moiré on the sides of buildings in the approximate boxes (5700+65, 1170+345), (6210+130, 1795+70), (6700+110,1780+180), (7115+100, 2145+430)... some of these may be more simple to desaturate or fix than others. Also, per W.carter, {{location}} templates would be good. Storkk (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I have added an image note for the worst seam. Storkk (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Great job on the seam :) added Moiré notes per your request below. Storkk (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Awesome shot in an awesome city. Sportsguy17 21:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Charles (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree that the night shot is more beautiful, but that's partly because I just like the lights more than many of the buildings. Either way, great achievement and great documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good!!! --Karelj (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done {{panorama}} and geocode and new version uploaded. Please add images notes for Moiré, I will do it tomorrow. Im going back to Europe tonight and will not have time or opportunity to read and answer here before tomorrow. Thank you for all votes and comments.--ArildV (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Each of two are eligible for FP, but I would have prefered two exactly superposable pictures, exactly symetrical, and exactly taken from the very same point of view. I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Frauenstein Kraig Kirchweg 6 Pfarrkirche hl Johannes d T 14082017 0358.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 12:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Thanks for your specific review and assessment. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Sputniktilt. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning HalfGig talk 23:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - If the votes for this one weren't so overwhelming, I would be a stinker and oppose this one, too. I think the idea of a church emerging from the trees is a good one, but to complete the form, I'd like a cloud over the church, and I mention this in case you have a chance to take another photo on a mostly sunny day when there's a cloud or two in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Whenever there is a chance, I am going to fulfill your wish for a photo that meets your taste of a brisk cloudy sky of blue, white and perhaps some shades of grey. For the moment I thank you for your honest review and stimulation. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Same dust spot as above... I tend to agree with Sputniktilt first part of comments. --Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Sorry for the dustspot. In the meanwhile it was being removed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Image:A man sells some rabbits.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 08:02:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment This vote is valid since it is your own nomination. --cart-Talk 08:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very unsharp and not a compelling composition, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The story was good but the quality is insufficient for FP mark. ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Moheen. --cart-Talk 08:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd expect higher quality from a modern-day FP.--Peulle (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because unsharpness and composition render very unlikely to attain FP status. - PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 16 August 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.

File:Herfstwandeling door natuurreservaat It Wikelslân 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 04:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects American Windmill
  •   Info Autumn walk through natural reserve It Wikelslân. The blades of this American Windmill stabbing beautifully against the bright cold frosty air. created All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support how un-Nederlands ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is too tight for my taste. I would prefer something like this, as it gives the main subject more room for breathing and has the frost on the ground as a bonus. This one would be my favourite from this day of shooting, had the windmill been placed more off-centre towards the right (in a golden rule/rule of thirds kind of way). --El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition...--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, the composition could be better. The windmill isn't in the centre but it's not enough off-centre and the result is a bit unharmonic to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per El Grafo. Yann (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per El Grafo. --Karelj (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ferry Building at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 22:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info created by Dllu - uploaded by Dllu - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kasir (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as creator. Thanks for nominating it, Kasir! dllu (t,c) 00:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. The sky is subtly blotchy at full size. Full size is quite big, but if you feel like smoothing that out a little and that doesn't do some other kind of damage to the picture, go ahead. My vote doesn't depend on that, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support well composed picture. --Sputniktilt (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not an easy view to capture. -- King of ♠ 00:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Charles (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Storkk (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect, but as King implies very, very good given what there is to work with. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Acrida ungarica 2017 Koroni 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 18:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • the grasshopper itself is not very colourful and the background neither. I think that these colours are quite natural. Compare it to the second shot of the same hopper which appears more colourful, here on the right side. This second shot has been taken later, under a very warm, descending sunlight, i.e. less natural (the timestamp is UCT+1 but Greece has UTC+2), while the picture listed as FP candidate was shot a bit earlier, with less direct sunlight (it was a bit cloudy that day) and with more stones and sand in the background to have a clear contrast between the background on one hand and the sticks and the insect on the other hand. Not all insects are colourful ;-) --Sputniktilt (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The colour of this very interesting insect itself is not my problem. But this almost colourless or cold or grey background with these crosswise lying stems disturbing me very much. After long thinking about that I just can give an   weak oppose, sorry. --Hockei (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Changed to   Neutral in order not to block the speedy promotion.   --Hockei (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment a) Please check for some dead pixels in the lower half. b) Please categorize properly (location). --A.Savin 23:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for pointing out the dead pixels (not good for Capture One, because they are not on the raw file). It's fixed (please refresh your browser cache) and I added the file to the category Insects of Greece. Please feel free to add another cat if you think that that might be useful. --Sputniktilt (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Greece is big. --A.Savin 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • true. I added Koroni as a place. But I have to admit that I am not the grand master of Cats. If you like to add another, please feel free to do so. Your help is much appreciated. --Sputniktilt (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The bokeh's a bit harsh and busy but I really like the "camouflaggy" character of the image --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Depth of field might be a bit too tight, and I don’t think this picture is for everyone but the more I looked at this the more I like it. The sharpness is just great, I didn’t see hardly any grain, and to use Martin Falbisoners word "camouflaggy" really sets it apart. Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good for me now. --A.Savin 00:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It does look a bit dull colour-wise, but the composition is very effective. Charles (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Charles. Another of those (to me) unusual photos where the animal's ability to blend in with its surroundings makes the picture better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Elizabeth L. Remba Gardner, Women's Airforce Service Pilots, NARA-542191.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 14:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castel del Monte BW 2016-10-14 13-04-18 stitch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 07:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
  •   Info Castel del Monte (Italian for "Castle of the Mountain") is a 13th-century citadel and castle situated on a hill in Andria in the Apulia region of southeast Italy. It was built during the 1240s by the Emperor Frederick II, who had inherited the lands from his mother Constance of Sicily. In the 18th century, the castle's interior marbles and remaining furnishings were removed. It has neither a moat nor a drawbridge and some considered it never to have been intended as a defensive fortress; however, archaeological work has suggested that it originally had a curtain wall. Described by the Enciclopedia Italiana as "the most fascinating castle built by Frederick II", the site is protected as a World Heritage Site. It also appears on the Italian version of the one cent Euro coin.
    created User:Berthold Werner with help from LivioAndronico - uploaded and- nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Already in the QI nomination the stiching errors have not been removed! (see notes) --Llez (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  Question Are you sure you have erased your browser cache? --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  Support -- Oops, sorry --Llez (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Excuse me Berthold, this could have been a great picture (I especially like the shape), but I'm worried about the very unsharp areas at the edges. Not sure if stitching was necessary here. --A.Savin 23:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, there are a couple of minor stitching errors visible at 100% - if you look carefully. I'm sure Berthold will take care of these as well. And yes, edges appear somewhat unsharp, again only at 100%. But it's a large file. Scale it down a bit, let's say to 3000x3000, and everthing's fine. So that's not a dealbreaker at all. Subject, colors, and composition are excellent, therefore I see no reason why this nom should not be featured. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Zwanenbloem (Butomus umbellatus) 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 04:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 03:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Fernand Michaud, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Rufus and Georges Wilson playing Waiting for Godot, respectively the roles of Estragon and Vladimir, Avignon Festival, 1978
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks very Ingmar Bergman-esque and artsy. --cart-Talk 08:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 11:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support an excellent portrait, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The low technical quality is easily eclipsed by what this image is and the time it was taken must be taken into account. Great wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 19:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. It's also great to have an FP related to the stage. And of course, they do not move. Daniel Case (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow. "Quality" has nothing to do here. And I love both Rufus and Wilson. Nice. Waiting for... promotion.--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2017 img01 Spit of Vasilievsky Island.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 18:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 18:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 18:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Outstanding documentation! I realize this is a drone picture, and a damn good one. I'm assuming further noise reduction would injure something else about the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 20:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sportsguy17 00:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wow. a clear case. per others. --Sputniktilt (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 11:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment undoubtedly a great and well composed picture. But imho the whole front part of the city is in shadow (cloud?) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Although I think it would be stronger if cropped to the foreground, where the detail is sharpest. But this is an improvement over other drone images we've had. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Opernhaus -- 2017 -- 1638.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 17:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 17:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 17:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, high-quality picture, but an obtrusive, almost aggressively uninteresting (to me) subject plus construction to its left is just not wowing to me. This would be a really good VI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support not per Ikan ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The building is very interesting and the quality is high but the angle is uninteresting. I think that a lower angle might have worked better here as it would 'open up' the house a bit. See how it worked for this opera house. The cranes are not on a construction site; that is the shipyard next to the opera. The cranes are permanently fixed on each side of the dock, so not going anywhere soon, they are part of the cityscape. --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Good light, but compositionally a bit boring. On borderline cases like this, I tend to look towards resolution/quality. I feel like there might be a bit too much water and sky, so there's really only about 10 million high-quality pixels, which isn't enough to push an otherwise marginal image over the edge for an easy-to-take subject like this. -- King of ♠ 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Given that we already have an FP of the front facade, there is a bar to get over, and this angle doesn't do it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination The image looks like no chance for FP. Thanks for all your reviews. --XRay talk 15:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Succisa pratensis - Niitvälja bog - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 15:11:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Choca-de-chapéu-vermelho (Thamnophilus ruficapillus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2017 at 19:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created and uploaded by Clodomiro Esteves Junior - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I could nitpick the composition, and a little more sharpness on the bird's head would have been welcome, but it's a pretty large file for a bird picture, the sharpness is solid, in my opinion, and it's a nice bird that took a nice pose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Nice, but IMO minor JPEG artifacts. Should be a 100% JPEG. --XRay talk 10:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stains in the backround and strange colour around the feather above the head (for example) and the head and beak. See note. --Hockei (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too many processing errors. --Laitche (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good shot, bad and undeclarated retouching --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose processing. Charles (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Hockei and opposes following him. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

File:Japacanim (Donacobius atricapilla).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2017 at 19:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created and uploaded by Clodomiro Esteves Junior - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - What are the things that look like water color boundaries (if you get my meaning) in the background, such as right above and slightly to the right of the bird's eye? They're a little distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Looks like unsharpened with a mask. Some problems at the beak. --XRay talk 10:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stains in the backround and strange colour around the beak (for example). See note. --Hockei (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too many processing errors. --Laitche (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good shot, bad and undeclarated retouching --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose processing again. Charles (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Hockei. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

File:Neuhaus Mühlweiher 17RM2099.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2017 at 07:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by me Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is gorgeous, immediately struck me at thumbnail size and doesn't disappoint me at larger sizes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Staggering. Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's nice, but for me the wow is spoiled by those branches poking in from various directions.--Peulle (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. Those branches give depth and dimension. PumpkinSky talk
  •   Oppose Casual topic and "zero wow effect". Very annoying branch on the upper left corner. - Benh (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and wow! --Milseburg (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and 7....For above! --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but neither the light nor the composition is featured for me. --Ivar (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose So much went right with this picture, but I've looked at an inordinate amount of water-reflection pictures while creating and diffusing that category and this one just doesn't stand out enough for me. Maybe a zoomed shot of the mill opposite? As it is it just doesn't seem to have a subject, pretty through the background and foreground are. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice HalfGig talk 23:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Octopus Vulgaris - Poulpe commun.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2017 at 06:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Floralesta (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was only your second edit. --cart-Talk 12:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice video, but I'm reluctant to support because I feel like there should be more explanation of what we're looking at for FP. Is the octopus catching and eating an organism at the end of the video? What species? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The video lingers too much on just the eyes of the octopus, it would have been nice to get more glimpses of other parts of the creature. The file is also lacking info on where and how the video is made; aquarium, open sea, where and so on. --cart-Talk 17:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. --Karelj (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Ikan and cart. I would like to see subtitles added with TimedText. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Pesenbach Kirche Innenraum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 18:05:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hi @Ikan Kekek: What you describe so clearly makes this church interesting for me. Austrian churches tend to be overloaded by altars, paintings, etc., mostly of doubtful quality. This church is different, and I like the very special atmosphere there. A church in a little village, unknown to most people, no tourists. I have spent there about two hours, just this excellent altar, my camera, and me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand. I will live with the photo longer and see if the magic strikes me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice and high quality work especially the excellent light management in the altar area. But most of the picture is dominated by the quite uninteresting cross vault.The altar on its own would be a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The majority of rural churches in Austria (or Bavaria) were built in the 14th or 15th century, i.e. they are essentially gothic. Many people don't realize that since most church interiors were significantly changed during the baroque period. So it's actually rather challenging to find good examples of, more or less, "unaltered" (I know the term might be misleading) rural gothic parish churches. This image here is a great example and technically well executed. We should appreciate that, the photo is very valuable. From a purely aesthetic perspective I really do prefer baroque decorations, but that's not very NPOV... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the image would be strengthens by cropping off some ceiling e.g. to 16:9 or even slightly wider. The ceiling repeats so not really losing much information and then the arches along the sides become more dominant pattern. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi @Colin: I tried a tighter crop as you proposed, but I like the image much more as it is. So I decided to keep it uncropped. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I feel like I've given this photo a chance, and all that shadow doesn't do it for me for an FP. To me, it makes the photo interesting, and I understand why it was a pleasant experience, but the shadows don't help make it impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi @Ikan Kekek: I appreciate your considerations anyway. I tried to crop the upper part of the image, but for me this would not be an improvement. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it would be, either. I don't feel that the composition, apart from the light, is a problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. This is the interior as it was originally designed, and having a good-quality picture of an intact gothic church interior is significant enough to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz Stappitzer See Südwest 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 17:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
  •   Info Lake Stappitz in the Seebach Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia, Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not impressed by the lighting, especially the backlit cabin and lack of color in the sky due to the time of day. -- King of ♠ 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 23:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of Hearts --Cvmontuy (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Okstartnow (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great detail but the wide-angle means the lake looks small, the boat tiny, and the vertical crop so low that the mountains aren't working for me. Prefer the view from the other side File:Stappitzer See Seebachtal Mallnitz 2013 08 a.jpg. -- Colin (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great detail, since I´ve been there I'm convinced, that this location is represented very authentically, also the proportions. Maybe a little step on the shore right of the boat should be removed. I think the time of day is well choosen for this shot, because later or earlier a day such valleys are in shadow comletly. Perhaps the cabine should be lighten up a bit. --Milseburg (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi @Milseburg: You are very right, new version available. Thanks for the hint and your support. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH and Colin, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I feel like this peaceful, comparatively simple composition is an FP, and I'm willing to tolerate the haziness in the further background for the rest. But I do agree with Colin that the other view he linked to could produce a more breathtaking FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Ikan Kekek. --XRay talk 10:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's big, but the midday light and basic composition don't put this shot above a touristy shot IMO. - Benh (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 11:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per harsh midday light. I'd like to see an attempt from the other side per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good crop. --Karelj (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Stirnberg - Ausblick vom Nordwesthang.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 09:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info View out of the wintely Rhön Mountains in Hesse, Germany. See annotations for geographical informations. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As before. As an overall scene, it is far too narrow to form a pleasing panorama for the eye: everything is tiny and there's a lot of snow and not enough sky. I fee like I'm looking down at the snow and can't lift my head up straight when I look at this. The only thing my eye focuses on is the tree on the far right, as everything else is too indistinct to make out. As an image to zoom into, it is neither a full 360 nor is it detailed compared to other FPs that reward zooming. Look at the other images in Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas and you will generally see they make great images even in small size. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very sharp and good, and I feel cold just looking at it! Very well-captured powdery snow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Colin and Daphne, again I disagree. The full 360° around aren´t rational here. Behind me is dark forest. View offers only the direction shown. I don´t know what medium you use for regarding my panoramas. On my screen it fills clearly more than 100% in the standard-viewer and full resolution. It is not narrow. There is no interest to blow it up with simply white snow on the bottom or empty blue sky at the top or the forrest behind. The panorama shows the natural outlook as it can be seen with free eyes into a landscape I often work with in the German Wikipedia and I think it´s usefull there. Details are limited. I dont´t want to show the house numbers in the villages. Do you want to suggest another FP-category for my images since you think that only 360° or 360°x180° are panoramas? Yes, some FPs are better, some not. Is it a valid guidline that a FP rewards zooming in any special viewer? --Milseburg (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daphne --LivioAndronico (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support a lot to see.--Ermell (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this works well as a panorama. The wow factor for me is provided by the swooping curves of the hill. --Peulle (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - So the curve isn't actually there, only in the photograph? Could you please address this question, Milseburg? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It´s in fact a curved landscape. I really not sure which curve is meant exactly. Perhaps it's helpful to compare the image with a calculated, virtuell panorama. --Milseburg (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I guess the real question is, is the curve up to the right and left really there? About how many degrees is this panorama? 180°? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, A cylindrical projection keeps vertical lines straight-up-and-down but only the centre horizontal is straight (remember this image may not be cropped symmetrically around the centre of the projection). There is one cylindrical projection (here) that preserves diagonals-from-the-centre-vanishing-point straight also). Other than that, horizontals get increasingly bent as you deviate from the centre. See File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - South Panorama.jpg for an example, and you can check on Google Maps that the road I'm standing on to take that photo is relatively straight. Some scenes hide this better than others, but it is still there and cannot be elminated. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Colin. This seems like a gentler curve than that, but I'd love to see what this photo would look like in a straighter horizontal projection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  Info The viewing angle is approximately 200 °. Consider, that I am not standing on a plain. It is a slope. If you take a look in this way, it´s normal that the view goes down the hill first and than rises up again. A straight snowy plain in the foreground isn´t correct here. --Milseburg (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to take your word for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
See also File:Winter auf dem Heidelstein.jpg from a more plane shooting location and same method of projection. --Milseburg (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring unbalanced composition and extreme ratio. The downsampling algorithm (?) yields those very sharp, aliased and unpleasing edges. - Benh (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Benh. --Karelj (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Old door in Bamberg (color version).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 08:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Doors
  •   Info all by El Grafo -- El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info A crooked old door in one of those tiny alleys of Bamberg, Germany. In most of the times, painting graffiti on ancient structures like this would be considered vandalism, but for some reason I think in this case they really add to the over-all appearence.
  •   Support -- El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 14:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a good photo of a not very unusual door but for a FP it has zero wow effect for me.--Ermell (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Ermell. Daphne Lantier 19:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell. --Karelj (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I wouldn't mind some sharpening, but I like the colours and the simplicity of it. Less is more - Benh (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A difficult one. First of all, I would like to thank you for having listed this picture here. A very beautiful picture of a door, which is worth to be examined from close. At WP, we need excellent images for everything, and this door is a picture that can tell many stories. But I would like to add a wish: please add your info note above to the file and add more precise location information (the coordinates of the camera position is given, but I guess this picture depicts a door in a street and is accessible, therefore please indicate the Street's name as well) --Sputniktilt (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Mohrhof Weihergebiet 17RM0275.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 14:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   InfoThe valley of the river Aisch is the main carp breeding area in Bavaria with an almost endless number of ponds. All by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Background is sort of jumbled, but curvy dirt roads in rural areas (trust me, I live not too far from a few) always work. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Good image, but nothig special, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 00:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, essentially per Karelj. High-quality photo, but I don't find the composition outstanding, even though elements of it are nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Karelj. Yann (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Bahrain Fort March 2015.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 06:31:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info The Qal'at al-Bahrain, also known as the “Fort of Bahrain” and previously as the “Portugal Fort”, is an archaeological site located in Bahrain. Archaeological excavations carried out since 1954 have unearthed antiquities created by various occupants from 2300 BC up to the 18th century. It was once the capital of the Dilmun civilization and was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2005. I think the rather harsh lighting actually helps the composition here as it accentuates the architectural features of the fortress, underlining the power and resilience of its walls. The earth-colored tones of the image’s lower half and the deep-blue sky of the upper half define an interesting contrast. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. You also have an interesting ancient-and-modern thing going on between the fort and the skyscrapers visible in the background on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like this composition. :) --Peulle (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like how you've captured the fort like a ship driving up swells of dirt from its bow. Btw, "I want your camera, your lenses and your travel budget." :-) --cart-Talk 09:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support a great picture. A fort is a massive, heavy, and strong building. Martin successfully translated these traits of a building into a beautiful picture. --Sputniktilt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to spoil. But the light, the shadow... Somehow doesn't impress me. --A.Savin 13:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per A.Savin. Daphne Lantier 19:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sun 13 Aug → Fri 18 Aug
Mon 14 Aug → Sat 19 Aug
Tue 15 Aug → Sun 20 Aug
Wed 16 Aug → Mon 21 Aug
Thu 17 Aug → Tue 22 Aug
Fri 18 Aug → Wed 23 Aug

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

Wed 09 Aug → Fri 18 Aug
Thu 10 Aug → Sat 19 Aug
Fri 11 Aug → Sun 20 Aug
Sat 12 Aug → Mon 21 Aug
Sun 13 Aug → Tue 22 Aug
Mon 14 Aug → Wed 23 Aug
Tue 15 Aug → Thu 24 Aug
Wed 16 Aug → Fri 25 Aug
Thu 17 Aug → Sat 26 Aug
Fri 18 Aug → Sun 27 Aug

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 human user to do it). However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for 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 human user 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/August 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/August 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.