Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


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

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

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

Formal thingsEdit


Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is 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}} -- ~~~~.


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 if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version 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


Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2017 at 10:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sonntagberg Basilika Orgel 03.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2017 at 08:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Houtzagerij Sagi Tschiertschen 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2017 at 06:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects # Switserland Sawing machine, detail.
  •   Info Water-powered Sawmill, Sagi Tschiertschen. Built c 1920. sawing machine. Detail. The color and atmosphere of this photo evokes memory memories from the fifties of the last century. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good dynamic composition. The machine is literally quiet, but for my eyes, it moves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Love the textures. --cart-Talk 10:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Central Park New York October 2016 panorama 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2017 at 05:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge 7 LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 23:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America
  • Along Great Marsh Trail, Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina. All by me.-- PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Confusing composition, with nothing that really grabs one's attention. -- King of ♠ 01:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment What I like is the gestalt of the whole photo: the intense colors, the calm still water with sharp reflections, the lines that lead you to the lines leading to that small entrance to the marsh reeds just below that branch that is sort of in the center. PumpkinSky talk 01:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see what you are getting at and it would have been a great photo if the bushes down right and right had not been in the way. That would have let the pine branch hang over clear blue water. Having something between the camera and the main motif is very seldom a good idea. I'm sure it felt fantastic being in such a place. --cart-Talk 10:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @W.carter: It's a very pretty trail, very peaceful, but unfortunately we can't cut down the trees and bushes. This was the best angle for a photo at that spot. Thanks for seeing what I saw. PumpkinSky talk 11:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 11:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Car tire tracks in snow under sodium light.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 22:46:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info The surface is totally flat and level. The camera is the same place as for this photo, only pointing down and a bit to the left instead. Any perceived curvature is just an optical illusion caused by the curving tracks and gradient light. It is photographed with a normal zoom lens (the one permanently attached to my camera) so no fish-eye lens or anything like that. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I love this. Nice artistic flair without leaving photography and getting into grapic art (at least what I call graphic art). One question--is the bright upper right corner intentional? PumpkinSky talk 23:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep, it is intentional since it is exactly what it looked like. :) That's where the lamp (old mobile photo) is, shining down on the snow. You can see the pool of light in this photo as well. I took some more, but I haven't had time to upload them yet. This one had the best pattern. --cart-Talk 23:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this is a fantastic photo. Great capture! PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm afraid I don't get it. --A.Savin 04:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not be sorry, I like honest reviews, they are welcome too. I was going to get my car when I saw the pattern made in the newly fallen snow and the pool of light. Then I saw that some of the tracks curved towards the light. That's when I went back to get my camera and tripod. ;) --cart-Talk 09:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose colors. You should change temperature. We dont see it like this.--Mile (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it's the color I saw so I'd like to keep it. Anyway, thanks for your review. --cart-Talk 13:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Mile, a sodium street light is essentially monochromatic (589 nm) so there's no concept of "colour temperature". It is yellow-orange and nothing else. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment True headache shot. --Mile (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Mile, if that is how you feel about this photo, I don't think you should strike your oppose vote, I don't mind. You usually oppose my photos, so I'm used to it. Please vote the way you like. --cart-Talk 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • cart You even count them ? Whats the score ? --Mile (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course I don't count anything, don't be silly. I just don't want you to vote any way you don't like. I know that my experimental photography is not for everyone. --cart-Talk 18:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent pattern and gradient of light. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice!--Famberhorst (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge 4 LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 15:57:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America>
  • Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the ripples on the water and the lighting is nice. I'd be interested in a photo of just that. But the rest isn't doing anything for me. Just looks like you were out for a nice walk in some wetlands and took a few photos along the way. I'm not seeing something to make we go wow for FP. I think the contrast and saturation and blue is unnaturally high (esp compared to this taken a minute different, which I know is underexposed). You can get away with that if doing an abstract but for a natural scene it needs to be modest adjustments. Also, please export your JPGs in sRGB, not "ProPhoto RGB". Many people will not be seeing the correct colours if you use that colourspace, and it greatly increases the risk of posterisation. -- Colin (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I think that if you crop out the left side of the photo, more or less along the lines in the note I posted (it should extend to the bottom of the file, but it isn't that easy to control the crop-suggestion tool), I would support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment -I can do that later today when I get back to my puter with LR on it. PumpkinSky talk 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @Ikan Kekek: Ikan, I've done the crop, cut blue a tad, changed to sRGB. I do like this crop better. PumpkinSky talk 22:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - I'm now seeing a crop on the right as a good thing, too, but to do that or not is up to you as the artist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would crop to the left of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek::Done. PumpkinSky talk 01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't the crop or log I meant. I'll try to mark another suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek::Done. Interesting perspective, good eye you have there, but yes, I think this is a good crop. PumpkinSky talk 01:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. And I do think it makes the picture a lot better. Johann, do you like this crop? Colin, do you think it improved the composition? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, thank you. It improved the image a lot. You are posting very just reviews. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I do what I can. I've learned a lot about photography from participating here, but so far, I'm pretty much only taking cell phone pics and haven't uploaded any yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: With the knowledge and photo eye you have, I'm confident you can take fantastic photos. PumpkinSky talk 11:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a good eye but very limited technique and equipment. But I don't want to hijack your thread more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Cabo da Roca on sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 14:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Olga1969 - uploaded by Olga1969 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too much saturation and contrast. We like our nature natural on Commons FP :-) -- Colin (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice artistic shoot and composition, however, like Colin told you. For us is important see the natural colors. Try change for the natural version and I could change my vote. --The Photographer 16:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially The Photographer, because I'd like to see this with more normal colors and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cooked to much, saturation, colors, contrast. --Mile (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because all the opposes are sounding a common theme and it's not likely they will be overcome 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:SA 20130811 1355.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 13:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by Sara Afonso -- Sara Afonso (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sara Afonso (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hello Sara and welcome to Commons. I see that you are new here and with this nomination you are certainly jumping in at the deep end. :) Most newcomers are advised to start by first nominating their photos at Quality Images before doing a nomination here. There are a few technical details that you need to be aware of. A photo nominated for QI or FP must have a name that accurately describes the photo and not just a number, it should also preferably have the location in coordinates ( {{Location}} ) and you should also provide which FP category you are nominating this in. If you look above, the slot for that is empty. You have also put your photo in too many categories, they need to be sorted out, you can read about how categorization works here: Commons:Catégories. I don't know how much English you speak, so if it's difficult for you to understand what I have written here, you can make a comment in French and a French user could help you instead. --cart-Talk 13:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good advice from W.carter, I second that. Also, just to get the votes in, I   Oppose this one for a slight lack of DoF, as well as a compositional issue; I don't really know what the image is trying to be.--Peulle (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Castillo de Goluchow, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 15.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 11:08:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Gołuchów Castle, its reflexion in Trzemna (a small river and estuary of the Prosna) and its surroundings, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. This early-Renaissance castle was built between 1550-1560 for Rafał Leszczyński, Voivode of the Brześć Kujawski Voivodeship. The castle was predominantly used for defensive purposes and later transformed into a magnate-Renaissance stronghold. The partially run-down castle was reconstructed in the 19th century in Renaissance architectural style and it houses now the Branch of the National Museum in Poznań. All by me, Poco2 11:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poc what is so special here. I am more lost in the wilderness of tress. Castle is in small part of photo, compo isnt so good, foreground especially. --Mile (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I think I agree with Mile this time. I definitely understand why you want the reflection, but I don't think it's worth all the dried grass and such. I'd like to see a closer-up view of the castle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support imo a perfectly fine winter impression that works for me. The reflexion's great, I also like the diagonal created by the creek --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just doesn't work for me; just not all together. Maybe it's the contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) naar Gürgaletsch (2560 meter) 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 06:11:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Switserland
  •   Info View from the ridge to Gürgaletsch (2560 meters) on the Hüenerchöpf in the east. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think the vertical format suits this. I just want to see more on the left and right. Your "other version" is horizontal but misses out on the interesting ridge. But the sky just looks really strange. The clouds should be brighter. Looking at the EXIF I see you reduced both highlights (-53, perhaps ok) and whites (-50), and did the opposite for the shadows and blacks. Why boost the contrast +26 then? In my experience, dealing with over-bright clouds/snow is best handled by the highlights control alone, and similarly lifting the shadows is best done by the shadows control alone. I find the blacks/whites controls only really give nice results when used to stretch the white/black contrast (i.e. +white and -black, and rarely ever by the amount the Auto setting wants to do). Trying to use the Whites to lower the brightness of clouds just makes them look dull grey. This was taken at midday, so I'd expect the sky to be bright. The white balance is perhaps a little yellow too. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Support Oh that's so much happier-looking now. And comparing the other framing-options you added, I'm thinking I like this one better now. A small point, would be to do similar for the blacks and allow those dark crevices on the shadow side of the mountain to go black, rather than having so much of a +black adjustment that there's just a lot of dark-grey. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I respect Colin's points but would like to support this photo because it's so striking. Agnes, please address his points and maybe edit accordingly, and then I would expect to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thank you for your comment and that of Colin. I have edited this picture, but also the altenatives according to Colin's proposal.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 22:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agnes, this photo isn't actually of a hike you took, but of a specific view during that walk, so I think you should specify in your file description which mountain is in the foreground, and even better would be to describe the names and positions of all mountains in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done. Thanks for your reviews.
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 01:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 01:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 01:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a QI. Camera is not level and/or held perpendicular to the monument. -- Colin (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Moving monument, but would it be possible to get a sharper picture in brighter light? What direction does the monument face? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Silene vulgaris in Aspen (91171).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 22:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @King of Hearts: New version uploaded. Brightened the whole image slightly, and the plant itself slightly more. Also some minor denoising. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 01:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Backgoround is disturbive. Needs more light, and better (more close-anoted) crop. --Mile (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Mile here. The other flowers at the bottom of the frame bother me as a viewer, maybe because they are also cropped off in a random-looking way. And unfortunately, there's no way to crop them out completely (I don't think Mile's proposed crop would work for me). But I'd like to see how this looks with the rest of those flowers included - do you have any way to add more content at the bottom of the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There's not much more room available at the bottom (the second flower that's just slightly cut off in this version sits on the bottom edge in the original). I played with some cloning/stretching, but didn't come up with anything worth talking about. I think I'll leave it as is for the time being to get other opinions. I'd rather modify what's there than go with a tighter crop, though. Maybe darkening the background flowers and making them a bit greener to blend into the background more or something... — Rhododendrites talk |  23:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mile and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Erftstadt 10-2017 img07 Schloss Gracht.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 21:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
  •   Info All by --A.Savin 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Harmonious and restful composition, IMO, and high picture quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice apart from the crop on the left. Charles (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice enough reflection and lovely day, but the angle of view isn't good because we can't see the castle and that tall street lamp totally grabs the viewer's attention. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
      Comment The lamp I can clone out, if desired --A.Savin 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. Cant settle my eye anywhere. --Mile (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. The subject is the bridge, which to me makes nice pleasing abstract shapes in combination with the reflection, and frankly the elevated drawbridge seems to me to be more distracting than the lamp. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would completely crop the building on the very left. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:20171122 Khone Phapheng Falls 3935 DxO.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 11:33:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Khone Phapheng Falls, Laos. All by me -- Jakubhal 11:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakubhal 11:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I love the sense of power in this river and dark colors, especially in that line of clouds--it gives the photo an even stronger intense atmosphere. PumpkinSky talk 12:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree, but some selective sharpening, particularly of the rocks and vegetation on the right side (if done well) would not be misplaced. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe crop above, see note. Works better. --Mile (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version uploaded with different crop. Please All voting earlier, let me know if new version is still Ok. -- Jakubhal 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The new version is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. --Mile (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another one with that "Clocks"/Romantic painting vibe that I've liked so much in other FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 04:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Storgatan Säter 2017-12-03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 11:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Vivo (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nothing amazing to me, though I'd consider a statement of what's outstanding about this, if someone would like to express that view. Perfectly good picture and long sightlines; is that what's engendering support? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition. All the sunstars on the lights add a nice touch. -- King of ♠ 00:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Slush is never a good look. The right hand side is leaning, possibly because camera is not level. The illuminated street sign is very jarring. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose I don't mind the slush at all—it's Sweden in de facto winter, after all, and maybe my own perception is affected by it being two days after our own first snowfall here—but Colin is right about the effect of that street-crossing sign. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid that I have to agree with some of my colleges here. Even if slush is very common in Sweden, I tend to think that FPs should be harvested in more appealing weather. The glaring street sign (which is a Living street sign a confusing sort of speed limit sign in Sweden) is also really annoying. --cart-Talk 17:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like this one. Beautifully captures the atmosphere of the winter evening. -- B2Belgium (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bud of Tiger's footprint (Ipomoea pes-tigridis).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Electric guide 3×2.5 mm.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 09:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 01:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Buffaboy - uploaded by Buffaboy - nominated by Buffaboy. The Edward M. Cotter is the oldest active fireboat in the world. Here it is escorting USS Little Rock (LCS-9) to Buffalo's Inner Harbor for its commissioning. -- Buffaboy (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Buffaboy (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as a onetime Buffalo resident and member of the NRHP project on the English Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the feeling of motion in this picture. Very good composition IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 20:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 19:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Good focus to the dark clouds, foreground is only not really interesting --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful and like a good Romantic painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. One of those images where the sky is supposed to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Like a painting.--Claus 17:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 04:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Galtür - Heuernte - Heuballen 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 19:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good focus to the heuballs, but they are too greeny for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
      Support You are right, a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michielverbeek --Llez (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    **  Support This explains the colour --Llez (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Basotxerri (also pinging Michielverbeek and Llez since this might interest them too), the farmers where I live have started to use pale green plastic wrapping on the silage bales instead of the usual white, probably to make them look eco-friendly and blend in better with the landscape. Is this the case here too, just like in this photo? To me it doesn't look like a green tint on white, more like the bales are supposed to be green. --cart-Talk 08:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter, Michielverbeek, Llez: Indeed, the silage bales of this photo weren't white but pastel green, like in the other image. Thank you, cart, for noticing this! --Basotxerri (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've added the colour to the image description. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You might want to clean up the description and the categories a bit since silage and hay are not the same. Silage is fermented (it ferments inside the bales) grass or other crops while hay is dried vegetation (hay bales are always open in some way to allow oxygen in). --cart-Talk 11:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I've removed hay bales, although I'm really not sure what they do technically. As far as I know they cut the mountain grass, let it dry on a sunny day and then they put it in a silage bale. Next time in the Alps, I'll observe this better. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Grass for silage is usually let to dry off a bit for a couple of days to remove excess moisture, before it's put into silage bales. The things you accidentally learn when you suddenly find yourself living in the middle of farms... :-P --cart-Talk 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good compo. --cart-Talk 09:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that these plastic balls spoil the landscape, but at least these are green here. --Ermell (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, nothing outstanding to my eyes. I actually would like a composition in which you cropped out most of the hills to focus on the bales more. I don't find that the composition promotes eye movement that effectively. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not work for me, and the WB looks off. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Image:Junger Mäusebussard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 14:34:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Bird is nice but there is CA and noise in the tree leaves. Can this be fixed? PumpkinSky talk 15:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think you need to use the local adjustment brush to select the background and apply a negative sharpness (of equal value to the positive sharpness you have applied globally) which will cancel out the very strong sharpening applied here. You really mustn't sharpen the out-of-focus areas. The resulting noise is quite visible at screen size. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ancienne gare de train de TENDRARA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 14:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created & uploaded by Farajiibrahim - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very striking, but could the sharpness of the left side of the station be improved a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan I like the image but the left third is blurred. Is there problem with the lens? -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would support it, but it's out of focus, or focus at the end of house. --Mile (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient sharpness, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Fallout 4 Pinup Cosplay.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 10:40:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info Fallout 4 pin-up style cosplay featuring a young lady dressed as a vault survivor wearing a Pip-Boy which is an in-game device representing a portable personal computer. This cosplay was reviewed by at least Kotaku [1], GameStar [2] and Kanobu [3]. Created by Makar Vinogradov (Flickr) - uploaded by Александр Мотин - nominated by Александр Мотин -- Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely has a certain wow factor. If anybody's curious about the copyright issues re cosplay images, here's a link to the previous discussion on the subject.--Peulle (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The previous FPC Peulle mentions was a 19MP high quality photo with good background. This is a 2.6MP photo and while the model and pose is fine the seat with loose white covers looks rather inappropriate. The image is simply too small for FPC for this kind of photo (indeed there are vanishingly few images at 2.6MP that would pass FPC for any subject) and while we continue to get 20+MP photos pixel peeped to death, it would be very unfair to pass this, which wouldn't print sharp at A4. -- Colin (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I have opened the photo, its more than A3 size i think. Much more than A4, and should be sharp. So what site is OK then - now is stated above 2.08 MPx ? I miss EXIF data, but it looks like some Kodachrome portrait from some '90 game. Its fine shot i think, maybe this colors suit that era game. --Mile (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Mile, what are you talking about? A3 is 420mm tall (16.5"). At 300dpi this can't print taller than 169mm (6.6"). Even A4 is 297mm. Even at 240dpi it doesn't fill A4. Mile please look at our other portraits and see that even full-size-out-of-camera photos get a hard time here. So I have no patience for images that are soft at 10x fewer MP than "our finest". It is fine for a cheesy thumbnail but no more. -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 300 dpi, why ? I see my screen, it is showing correct ppi/dpi... otherwise than migth change it. This can be printed on A3 and you wouldnt know dpi/ppi. Isnt that pixle peeping ?! I rather see quality on 2 MPx than 20 MPx of failed colors. --Mile (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 300 dpi is the standard for normal paper printing. --cart-Talk 10:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose on principle given my contrary position to COM:COSTUME as stated at the linked FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Mmmh. Resolution discussions aside: The colors and the over-all "classic" pin-up style fit my impression of the pre-war era of the Fallout universe very nicely. I agree with Colin about the seat/covers. But what's kind of bugging me is the the bottle: I understand that getting a replica of the rocket-like bottle style introduced with Fallout 4 would be difficult (but not impossible), but printing a proper Nuka-Cola label and sticking it on a classic Coke bottle would have been an easy workaround for the earlier games. Not really blown away, so I guess that's an   Oppose --El Grafo (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Seiser Alm 16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 06:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Maybe (?) you should clone out the antennas... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great picture and wonderful labeling. I'd keep the antennas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. Keep the antennas. Charles (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I cloned out the antennas, but I can revert it, if it is wanted; what do you think? --Llez (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it without the antennas. PumpkinSky talk 11:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very pleasant to look at, you're feeling all the depth of the landscape. Good job done indicating the summits, too! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 22:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little soft at distance but I think this was a necessary compromise. Beautiful color and composition! Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Woman under yoke carrying wicker baskets.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 02:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned this to you yet, but in all portrait photos, you should have a "Personality Rights Warning". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • PR template added, thanks @Ikan Kekek. I usually always add the template to my portraits. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info This person is a neighbour who lives a few houses away from mine. Unfortunately she lives alone, without children at home, and her husband is dead, perhaps the reason of her sad face. But I offered her a print of this photo already and she was extremely happy to receive it, but really much happier than I would expect, perhaps because she had no picture of herself and this one is thus precious. There's another version of this image here. At that moment she had not seen me already. Her face is neutral, and she also looks neutral when facing my camera. At this precize moment when I pushed the shutter button I'm certain she had not already realized that she was taken in picture because I was about 20 meters from her (focal length is 286mm). As a consequence, her facial expression is just natural. Not angry, not joyful, but herself carrying something during the monsoon. After that she was laughing, and I saluted her. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I therefore   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish that one stick wasn't coming close to the left side, but otherwise very Geographic. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The looks embarrass me a little, but a very nice image it is sure. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent picture. I also know that this is what a neutral expression can look like when you get old, I only have to look in a mirror. Gravity does that to you. --cart-Talk 09:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Sandcastle at Sunset on Morro Strand State Beach, Morro Bay, CA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2017 at 17:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
  •   Info created by Mike Baird - uploaded by Gary Dee - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Has a lot of wow as a thumbnail, but quite noisy, with dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan and and IMO too dark --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan Kekek. Man this could have been one of the most gorgeous picture I have seen. Its eerily beautiful but the quality on zooming degrades. Thats really sad. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft and contrast too overdone. As a cover for the paperback version of a fantasy novel it would be great. As an FP, no. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think that my vote could change the result, but I really like the idea, the light on the castle, the birds flying between the Morro and the castle. --Harlock81 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't think any of us don't like the idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimano Hyperglide cassette 8-speed CS-HG51 11-32.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2017 at 13:51:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others 2
  •   Info Shimano Hyperglide cassette 8-speed CS-HG51 11-32. My work. --Mile (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very wow-y and nice but I find the flesh-colored tint on the lower half of the photo a bit disturbing. It looks like the thing that happens very often when you are photographing some shiny metal, you get the color reflection of your hands and face on the metal. I think it would look better if that color was substituted with greyscale (as in describing the color not the technical term or other obscure refs) . --cart-Talk 14:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info cart it not flashed, of course, i would get mess here with flash. Its softbox, with lights around. That "hands reflection" isnt my reflextion, first cogset is much different color. --Mile (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC) p.S. I didnt choose BW, i tried, but i did vibrance -46.
    • Cart, let's keep greyscale away! I agree the golden tint to the inner cog is natural but the pink/orange tint to the bottom of several cogs is a reflection as Cart suggests. Either skin or the carpet or something else low down. It should be possible to use Lightroom/ACR colour saturation slider to click on the pink/orange bit and desaturate just that tone. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, you want more clinical colors. Probably was from book, this is sitting under some angle, made with book. Situated on book with silk thread above, thread was set not to disturb inscriptions on cogset, and latter removed. Yeap. Use what you have. OK, bottom is redone. --Mile (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:CzechRepublic-geographic map-en.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2017 at 12:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: That's right, it is a very common map. The beauty is not only in the presentation but the details and the format.--Ikonact (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing unusual about that, either. I've been a geography-lover since I got my first atlas at the age of 6. I'm very experienced in looking at maps, and I just don't think this is that special. If it were 5 or 10 times bigger and more detailed, like the paper maps I had from the National Geological Survey and whatever the Malaysian equivalent was in the 1970s, I would vote to support without a second thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would change the SVG so it chooses something like Helvetica in priority for the font, but looks quite nice to me. Benh (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Benh: I use fonts that are supported in Commons. But I can put Helvetica as fall back font. --Ikonact (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well that's a bit more complicated I think. The version we see on the thumbnails (and the PNG restarised by Commons' servers) will use those fonts supported. But putting another font of your liking (in my case Helvetica, but don't feel obliged) will only choose it in priority over the other ones when viewed on a device/engine which supports it. Note that Helvetica is available in Mac, but not necessarily in Windows or Linux (the latter has equivalent, and the former can always fallback to Arial which is similar to Helvetica). Also note that I don't know which font you choose (I haven't opened the sources) but the names of the major cities render with a serif font on my Mac. The font should be chosen wisely! - Benh (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The last font in the list is 'sans-serif'. I wonder if someone has a serif font in their browser configuration for the default sans-serif.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Benh:, I use Deja Vu Sans Condensed. This is a font supported in Commons. I usually put sans-serif as a fallback font and thus the system can choose the one defined by default. I can put Helvetica and Arial as fallback too. I will check the issue with this file. May be there is something with the fonts --Ikonact (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice! It would be more nice if it could be translated into more languages. Thanks for English. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: The advantage of doing these maps as .SVGs is that the text can be independently edited, making translated versions much easier to make. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: That is true, and this map might only need the legend details translated for many languages. If it does end up as the POTD, it should have more.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I planned to translate it at least in Czech... It is not difficult as the format is text. That's right that there may be little to translate as the names of the cities (with few exceptions) do not change. However, this may be a challenge for non Latin script languages. --Ikonact (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressing job done! --Basotxerri (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A lot of work, I presume.--Ermell (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Nijmegen, de Waalbrug RM523067 foto2 2016-08-24 20.20.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2017 at 15:29:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Netherlands
  •   Info In the foreground you see recently build extra protection in case of a river flood, the monumental bridge is just in the background.
  •   Info created by Michielverbeek - uploaded by Michielverbeek - nominated by Michielverbeek --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Curves and lines going everywhere; from the stairs down and curving to the left ... over the bridge, another bridge... Neat. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice light on the bridge but too much of the photo is unlit. And the couple in the centre of the photo catch they eye but are dark. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the crop on the right too tight, and the stairs in the foreground too distracting --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 22:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Foreground is too dark, lots of uninteresting sky at the top. -- King of ♠ 03:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but I have to agree with the other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, the foreground takes away too much from the bridges, which also suffer from this angle. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Zöbigker Hafen, Cospudener See, Markkleeberg, 1709102012, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2017 at 14:58:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Yachts at Zoebigker harbour (lake Cospuden), Saxony, Germany. You can find some other versions of the same scene on the file description page. All by me. --Code (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp evening photo with beautiful colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Charles (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome. :)--Peulle (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be tempted to clone out the thin line of cloud on the far left. What's the thing sticking up there? A tree or a TV mast? -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: I'm not sure. Maybe it belongs to the Belantis amusement park. I don't think it's really distracting, but if others agree with Colin I'd consider cloning it out. --Code (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm more happy with cloning out some distracting cloud than removing a permanent feature. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't understand your comment first. I'll give it a try later. --Code (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool - calm. --cart-Talk 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well Done. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely!!! How does the exif info show ISO of 50 when the camera range minimum is 100? --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very striking image, great light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Transport of buffalos on the Mekong.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2017 at 04:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Not quite perfect, but I'm guessing you had a lot of constraints from the situation and got what you could. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the main constraints I had was the speed of the boat and the direction of the sun. Obviously my tripod was of no use here :-) Though I'm still happy with this shot. The other versions I have with the boy looking left make no difference, from my point of view, because his eyes are hidden behind the shadow of his cap, and that detail is probably less important than his particular posture -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the composition, but IMO not sharp enough. --XRay talk 06:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin + light a bit dull. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bank myna (Acridotheres ginginianus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 21:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nope. It looks purplish to me. PumpkinSky talk 00:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Peulle, PumpkinSky: New version uploaded. Charles (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes.--Peulle (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I imagine, though I don't know, that you've gotten the bird's personality across. Regardless, you have certainly captured its gaze. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support the lighting is great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Asian pied starlings (Gracupica contra).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 11:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maybe 8f is too much and 400mm too far. IMHO this low quality is acceptable only when the birds are movement, for example this one --The Photographer 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obviously some sharpening is present, could get it - 400mm, but foreground and back could be redone some. At least middle part between the birds. --Mile (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sharpening in Photoshop CS6 was Unsharp Mask Radius 1 Pixel; ammount 50% Theshold 0. Charles (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree the quality is a bit unfavorable in full size, perhaps because 1/500s was still too long at 400mm. However, the composition with these open beaks face to face is very nice, and the background color highlights the subjects -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Tempered support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I could nitpick some things but as much as I criticize the "wow effect" this is the reason it's there. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - "Hey! Would you shut up while I'm talking?" I agree with others that the moment you captured overrides the degree of unsharpness, which is greater than usual for your bird FP nominations but not at all bad. If you know which one is the male and which one is the female (my guess: the male is on our left), or if they're both male and both female, please indicate that in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, can't tell the difference. And as you say, the technical quality is not quite as good as a typical portrait shot. But it's more fun, though not quite Tower-of-London-Raven fun. Charles (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support My opinion: both female. "Get away from my nest! Don't bother my eggs!" --Schnobby (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Lake Shkopeti, Albania.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 10:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Albania
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Pudelek - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very pleasant shapes and colors, IMO, and it helps that there are clouds in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An excellent place to make a beautiful composition. Unfortunately the right bottom corner irritates me because my attention strongly goes to all those branches and leaves --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I love the composition and want to walk through the monitor into this scene, but it is too unsharp in the background and betrays, on the clouds and the ridgeline, some signs of possible overprocessing to offset a perhaps-blown sky in the original. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Daniel. -- King of ♠ 03:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Good composition, minor halos from sharpening. Resolution could be better. --XRay talk 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Pudelek, would you like to make any edits to address some of the critiques expressed in this thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • no, because I like this version --Pudelek (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 10:20:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose My problem isn't so much the sharpness as the unnatural texture of the stone near the openings and the trees seen through them. It may be a byproduct of the tonemapping. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The limestone has been treated by the rain for millions of years, giving it its structure. The trees are unfortunately not optimal which is probably due to the tonemapping. --Ermell (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting view --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Uoaei1 --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does not look natural. The winter sky is not bright enough and the underneath not dark enough and the trees just a strange murky colour. I should get the impression of looking from darkness into light, but everything the same. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment The view goes through the collapsed roof of a cave. The side light is quite natural. HDR was necessary to represent the sky to some extent.--Ermell (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral the appearance of trees disturb me a little, but I don't know very much about HDR. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The yellow parts are morning sunlight shining in from the side. I uploaded a new version and fixed the bug in the sky.--Ermell (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Nebulosa de Trífida o M20 y Nebulosa de la Laguna o M8.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 21:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by Fedaro -- Fedaro (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fedaro (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Colorful, yes, but looks too much any other deep-sky astrophoto. Were it of just one or both nebulae it might be more striking. As it is it's just too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose on account of composition, which is nothing special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan, Daniel: just for the record in the case you didn't realise it. This image was not published by the NASA ant taken with the Hubble, but is the work of a Wikimedian! Poco2 06:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize that. That's amazing! But I still have to compare it to other photos in its category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, Ikan, I understand, but still unfair to compare WM photographers with the possibilities of the NASA --Poco2 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  Question Fedaro, since this wasn't done by NASA and we can't see deep space with standard camera gear, what camera/telescope did you use? PumpkinSky talk 13:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  Question - Why is it unfair in FPC to compare the work of a Wikimedian astronomer that was funded by Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación de Uruguay with NASA photos? Is there a new category of "photos by Wikimedians" that we should separately consider, or is Featured pictures/Astronomy the correct category for considering this photo? Do you feel the same way about reproductions of paintings: That we shouldn't consider the photos put out by museums or Google Art Project when deciding what is an FP? I would disagree. FPC is about the best of the best, regardless of source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Ikan: I didn't say that your are wrong, I just said that, specially in cases like this one, it's unfair...Poco2 18:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I haven't seen any other astronomy work of a Wikimedian of this category. Poco2 06:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: I wasn't comparing it to NASA work, not implicitly and certainly not explicitly. I was just saying it's rather busy. I mean, good work for an amateur, but that doesn't change the FPC standard. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


@Poco a poco: There is another astronomy FP by this user: File:Nebulosa de Eta Carinae o NGC 3372.jpg, a better pic than this IMO. --cart-Talk 22:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comentario),The photo was taken with a Nikon D700 camera with a 500mm Nikkon lens, in Piggyback on a telescope at the Los Molinos Observatory, nine shots were graded and then added using pixinsight, a software for astronomical photography.--fedaro (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- And thanks for the response. PumpkinSky talk 01:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Angelo su una tomba del CImitero Monumentale di Milano, Italia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 20:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info An angel spreads his wings on a tomb at Cimitero Monumentale in MIlan, Italy. Backlight, dark look, cemeterial feeling, created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The high level of chroma noise and lacking detail makes the quality below what's expected from an FP, IMO. I recommend first nominating your images at QIC to see if they are described as good.--Peulle (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Paulle, as i already did, i suggest you to calibrate your professional Apple monitor better so that you will be able to appreciate your traffic lights pics even more. A good techincian costs little money.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  Comment I reviewed this image on a brand new Macbook Pro, which was pre-checked by a professional technician before handed out to me at work. There is nothing wrong with the monitor. As for the traffic light photos, those were an effort to contribute some public domain photos to Commons, and most of them are not very good.--Peulle (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do like the light on the face and arm. But Peulle is right: the chroma noise is awful and the shadow parts of the picture quite posterised and lacking tonal detail. These both indicate to me the image was under exposed and recovered in post, which you might have got away with on a new Sony or Nikon but the older Canon cameras are poor for that. Unlike luminance noise, chroma noise doesn't disappear much even if I downsize the image a bit, and unlike film grain, chroma noise has no appealing aspects. As an aside, wrt "over sharpening" discussion elsewhere, I do see some oversharpening here, which a clear white pixel halo to the high-contrast edge with the sky. -- Colin (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, and I also don't really understand why you chose that particular orientation and those particular crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
* Becasue i like that particular orientation and those particular crops, it is quite evident:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Clear but non-explanatory. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Too dark generally, the color noise, the oversharpening noted by Colin and the awkward crop. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shadows are too strong --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I do get the angle and crop, I mean it's the same representation that Stan Lee came up with in the 1940s and it's been a template for hero shots of all super heroes ever since (you can almost see Hawkman in this), it would need a more dramatic lighting to work here. There are also the technical issues noted by others. Nice try though! I'd love to see someone recreate the extreme angles and light from Sin City: A Dame to Kill For or any of Frank Miller's books. --cart-Talk 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- agree with Daniel HalfGig talk 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ruine Neideck PA300138-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 11:40:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paolobon140, I'm not sure I understand your oppose here. I see a very high contrast scene, and possibly that is enhanced (+ Clarity, say) but hard to tell here as the light should be high contrast already. But I don't see the artefacts one would expect from over-sharpening -- there's no noise in the sky nor halo round high-contrast edges. The lens used here (7mm, equivalent to 14mm on a full frame) is an ultra-wide so I'd expect large depth-of-field giving near-to-far sharpness, excellent centre sharpness but less good towards the edges. -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Der Colin, the pic iss absolutely overshaped, nothing in real looks so sharp, even the sky. Its not a matter of lenses, cameras, mm, focus, apreture. This pic is so sharpened with Photosho that looks more like a cartoon, in my opinion. ANd, more, there must have been something interesting around the ruins to show, as the ruins themselves arae not an interesting subject, at least for me. Paolobon140 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Paolobon140, I can only think we are talking about different things. When I think of sharpening I'm thinking of (sub)pixel contrast enhancement. I suspect what you are complaining of is local (a region of several pixels) contrast enhancement which with Adobe Lightroom and ACR is achieved using the Clarity control. This can indeed make textures look hyper-real and artificial and perhaps that has happened here. Would Ermell tell us if the image has been boosted in that way, or with some sharpening tool? The EXIF data doesn't indicate any clear adjustment because it has been through four programs (Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.12, Adobe Photoshop CC 2017, Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 9.12, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7) and the last one didn't apply any adjustments that are recorded. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment @Colin:@Paolobon140: In Lightroom I corrected perspective, raised the shadows and reduced the lights. Then in Photoshop I removed some lensflares and branches sticking into the picture and then sharpened the picture with Nik sharpener which might not have been necessary. In Lightroom I reduced the highlights again. Sorry for answering so late, I didn't follow the dialogue properly.--Ermell (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the details Ermell. I'm not familiar with Nik sharpener to be able to spot its flaws so well as with the Adobe sharpening. But still, I don't see any evidence the sky is sharpened, which seems to be Paolobon140 criticism. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
          • I always skip the sky when sharpening because it usually doesn't make sense like in this case.--Ermell (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Side light brings out the detail in the wood and stones. -- Colin (talk)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 17:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support I wish more could have been done to tamp down the highlight on the clouds at upper right, but realistically I don't think you could go much further than this without making other compromises. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I cant see any sharpening effects. Defishing from 7 mm, I think more than good. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really very nice. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 04:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Albeck Seebachern Fahrweg zum Weissen Kreuz 22112017 2052.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 03:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I saw this at QIC a little bit ago and instantly loved it, and flagged it as a FPC possibility. I love the way the gently winding road makes a leading line toward the center (from the side) and into the point at top center where the mountains drop off into the valley. I also love the colors and sharpness. The unpainted wooden rail fence adds a nice rustic, rural motif too. PumpkinSky talk 03:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I salute PumpkinSky for providing an eloquent argument for this picture. That's great and worth emulating. However, I don't happen to agree that this is a great composition. Maybe if there were something striking in the upper right corner of the sky, I might feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Palacio de Comunicaciones, Plaza de Cibeles, Madrid, España, 2017-05-18, DD 32-34 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 21:00:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fishing in El Manglillo Bay, Margarita Island 15.jpg, no featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 19:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info This picture was in my last year in Venezuela and I take this picture on the end of a long fishing day with my family, it not was a market or whatever, the fish was alive in this picture. All by -- The Photographer 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop at the top is too tight IMO.--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The crop doesn't bother me here because the main subject seems to be the central fish, the one with a visible head and beautiful colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the top crop is a bit unfortunate with only two fish, and one facing away too. The top left corner is a little distracting and I'd like to see a proportion with more room in front of the fish than behind. You could try cropping off some of the left and bottom. -- Colin (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Thu 07 Dec → Tue 12 Dec
Fri 08 Dec → Wed 13 Dec
Sat 09 Dec → Thu 14 Dec
Sun 10 Dec → Fri 15 Dec
Mon 11 Dec → Sat 16 Dec
Tue 12 Dec → Sun 17 Dec

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

Sun 03 Dec → Tue 12 Dec
Mon 04 Dec → Wed 13 Dec
Tue 05 Dec → Thu 14 Dec
Wed 06 Dec → Fri 15 Dec
Thu 07 Dec → Sat 16 Dec
Fri 08 Dec → Sun 17 Dec
Sat 09 Dec → Mon 18 Dec
Sun 10 Dec → Tue 19 Dec
Mon 11 Dec → Wed 20 Dec
Tue 12 Dec → Thu 21 Dec

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below (except to add categories on the file page, because need a 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]] ===
    === [[: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/December 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/December 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.