Last modified on 4 January 2015, at 14:34

Commons:Featured picture candidates

This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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

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

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

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

  • Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
  • If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • All images should be of high technical quality.

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


Set nominations ONLY

Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.

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}}

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

VotingEdit

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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Above all, be politeEdit

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

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

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

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

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

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Safran-Weinviertel Niederreiter 2 Gramm 8285.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 05:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two gram high quality red threads of saffron from Lower Austria. All by Hubertl, Focus stacking by Alchemist -- Hubertl (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hubertl (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 06:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sesimbra March 2015-12a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 00:18:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The jetty of the port of Sesimbra, west coast of Portugal, at the end of a calm day. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment potentially a FP - but the way too centered lighthouse doesn't work for me here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Goldcrest 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 23:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Regulus regulus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Europe's smallest bird - the goldcrest, Regulus regulus. All by me, -- Baresi F (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Baresi F (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 03:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Leccinum variicolor LC0365.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 21:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leccinum variicolor
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mottled bolete (Leccinum variicolor); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LC-de (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good lighting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Radochowie 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St. Nicholas in Radochów
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it has too poor lighting to be FP. There are dozens of shadows. I would question the position from where the church was taken as well. That wall (and especially gates) covers the church up a bit. I would prefer the main entrance view. Furthermore, that wire coming to one of the buildings looks ugly and distracting. The nature is dead due to winter. If these trees at the right side near the church would have leafs, I think it would contrast quite well with the pale church. Overall, the church is not special in any way for me - simple small town church. It doesn't have "WOW" in it. Nothing more than QP, sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above I'm afraid --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014.07.18.-16-Schwarzbach Woellnau--Kleiner Blaupfeil-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 18:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Trakai Island Castle Chapel, Lithuania - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 09:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Trakai Island Castle Chapel interior.

File:Vilnius University Great Courtyard 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 09:55:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vilnius University Great Courtyard in Vilnius, Lithuania.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The perspective correction is to strong for me. For the buildings at the right and at the left side seem to be very distorted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Diliff: I'm not sure why you used such a wide angle lens when you have proven yourself to be a master of the HDR stitched photo. Why didn't you use a larger focal length and take multiple images to create a less seemingly distorted image?--Fotoriety (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not Diliff, but that is not how it works. I am certain he did do exactly that but you can shoot with a 50mm or a 100mm and still get distortion. That is solely dependent on the projection and the field of view, which is undoubtedly very (and perhaps too) large. Shooting smaller segments just gets you more sharpness and resolution, but the distortions are unavoidable. --DXR (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's not that I desperately waited to finally oppose a Diliff, but in this case Spurzem and Fotoriety are right imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Soldiers of 2 Royal Anglian Silhouetted in Afghanistan MOD 45157880.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 00:30:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soldiers of C Company 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment are silhouetted against the setting sun during operations in Afghanistan in June 2014.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cpl Daniel Wiepen - uploaded by Fae - nominated by Chase me ladies -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Recruiting-poster perfect! Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I don't like guns and the occupation in afghanistan, the picture is very beautiful --LivioAndronico talk 09:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is some kind of an advertising image and has nothing to do with reality. The depicted scene is completely designed and incompatible with military behaviour. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree with your comment that it is at odds with military behaviour, and I think others who have been in the military would agree with me. It looks like it's been taken just outside a military base - probably Camp Bastion - and that the soldier is using the sight on his rifle to scan the horizon during a pause in the patrol. You can see that he is kneeling by the razor wire & grass outside a base. The metadata shows that it was taken just after sunset in Afghanistan. There the possibility that the photographer has taken time to set up the shot and asked the soldiers to stay where they are, but that's unlikely, and in any case that is not a reason to vote against it - it is a reason to vote for it, as it was clearly taken by a professional photographer out in the field. I also do not believe it is advertising any more than a 'good photo' of anything can be taken as advertising. It would be nonsense to suggest that we should only accept blurry or bloody photographs of warzones. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral the photo is not localized. Is actually taken in Afghanistan? if not it's an advertising--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, it has been: see the caption: "Soldiers of C Company 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment are silhouetted against the setting sun during operations in Afghanistan in June 2014." If you search for the author's name you will see that he was based in Afghanistan for much of that year and took many other photographs which could only have been taken there. The metadata also matches the time of sunset in Afghanistan during 11 June 2014. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Uoaei1. No wow. --P e z i (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Regardless of any opinions on the propaganda of millitary images, this one is undeniably well taken. Diliff (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Multi plate pipe installation.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 23:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great idea and suitable wow, but the image is too noisy for me. Reworkable from RAW? --Kreuzschnabel 15:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Saint Sebastian outside the walls - Interno.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 19:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint Sebastian outside the walls - Interno
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination All by -- LivioAndronico talk 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not so perfect how a “Diliff” ;-) but still OK for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What I thought was distortion was really the bottom of the buttresses. However, I'd crop a lot of that wasted floor out at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fine details are blurred or NR away. I wish I could see what seems to be a nice ceiling a bit more clearly. Little wow overall. - Benh (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't use NR on 100iso,anyway just that you can oppose without explaining, you said always the same things. You can copy and paste is faster for you Clin --LivioAndronico talk 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You're the one who took the picture, so you should explain. Did you take the picture in JPEG? RAW? If in camera JPEG, most in camera processing applies some degree of NR by default, even at ISO 100, but I can't check your settings for you. If RAW which setting did you use for demosaicing? - Benh (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I explain if someone asks and not taken for granted,I use only Raw and I don't know what's is "demosaicing" --LivioAndronico talk 17:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you use raw, whether or not NR is off is not a concern. Demosaicing is (in short) how to translate "raw" data from ur sensor to an image. Demosaicing itself doesn't exactly apply NR, but if you use LR for instance, there's a possibility to apply NR on the process. I don't take NR but the fact details are gone for granted. NR or blurring gives some signature, which I find on all your pictures, and which explains I repeat my reviews since you don't care to listen or give an explanation. - Benh (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not know what language to write, I can answer if someone asks! This way you do not understand it meaningless.--LivioAndronico talk 23:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite a long way below FP level. Quite considerable barrel distortion at the edge of the frame, which should be corrected by decent raw software like Lightroom. (Daniel, I don't think it is just the bottom of the buttresses, as it affects the paintings too and is a known problem with this lens at 18mm). The EXIF says you use Paint.Net. That's a tool for creating screenshots and drawing icons, not a proper photo tool. Do yourself a favour and buy Lightroom 6 when it comes out later this month, or subscribe the the Lightroom+Photoshop program for about £8 a month. I think one problem with sharpness is you used f/14. If this is the 18-105 lens then see this review for why f/14 will be soft overall compared to f/8 or faster. I don't understand your "I don't use NR on iso 100". All digital photos have noise reduction applied, it is simply a question of how much and how intelligently. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I use Photoshop CC and Paint.net just to cut, I turned off the NR on my Camera, this mean that I don't use it.--LivioAndronico talk 17:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But if you use PS CC, you can (and should) easily correct distortion in Camera Raw, by ticking one box. Or am I misunderstanding something? --DXR (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot believe you use Photoshop CC, one of the best image manipulation tools, and then run it through Paint.net, one of the worst, in order to crop it. Photoshop has a great crop tool. And if you save a JPG in one program and run it through another you will lose quality (not to mention that Paint.net loses most of the EXIF data). LivioAndronico, do you shoot raw or JPG? If raw then the NR setting on your camera is ignored. If JPG, then the "NR" setting you claim to have turned off is doing no such thing. Perhaps you've turned off "Long exposure NR" or some other variant. It is simply impossible to turn NR off completely. The image would be noisy and full of coloured splodges without it. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Colin If not you see my photos and see what is the program that I have used in the majority. However the photos always in RAW then converted to JPG.For the NR you can read this [1] --LivioAndronico talk 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said, if you shoot raw then the NR setting on your camera has no effect. It only affects the amount of NR applied to the in-camera JPG (which you are not producing) and as the review notes, it still does apply some NR (just not as much). If you use Nikon raw converter then possibly the NR setting may give a hint to the raw converter as to what default amount of NR to apply when developing the raw file. But if you use Adobe Camera Raw with Photoshop CC (and you should as is is excellent) then this will be ignored. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
No on this I must admit that you are right, for convert in Jpeg I use the converter of nikon --LivioAndronico talk 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I would be interested to see how much you can improve it if you use Camera Raw. I'm puzzled why you use Photoshop or Paint.net for this image since Camera Raw should do all you need (including cropping). If you want a good book on Camera Raw, then buy The Digital Negative by Jeff Schewe. It won't fix the sharpness issues here (due to f/14) but should greatly improve your images vs what Nikon's converter can do. -- Colin (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The answer is simple, in the office I have not phoshop Face-tongue.svg. Anyway, thank you, I'll read it.Withdrawal this photo, so is the church where I got married and for your happiness I can try again. Thank You.--LivioAndronico talk 22:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Largely per Colin. The entire image appears decentered in a way that cannot be fixed by cropping. I also do not think that the church is overly featureable. --DXR (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. --P e z i (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Anthus richardi - Laem Pak Bia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 15:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anthus richardi
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JJ Harrison - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1989 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but I don't think it's amongst the "very best of" Commons. --A.Savin 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Model healthy village Laos (11).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Model healthy village Salavan Province Laos.
He is smoking.--Paris 16 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This man,(Akha Peoples), prepares his large water pipe called "Bang Yan" for smoking tobacco.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really wish I could support a shot from Laos, but I don't really like the centered composition, harsh behind light and "high" point of view (I probably would have crouched down for a more dramatic composition). - Benh (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose centered composition, too tight crop, and only little wow; Sorry. --P e z i (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Building of the Salins de Frontignan 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:53:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Salins de Frontignan, Hérault, France

File:Face fear…JUMP! Crisis Response Marines test insertion capabilities in Spain 150127-M-ZB219-053.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jump from a MV-22 Osprey at Morón Air Base, Spain
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sgt. Paul Peterson - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor framing (helicopter cut by frame, right crop too tight while on the left is much empty space) --Kreuzschnabel 13:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition suboptimal. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like the other oponents --Milseburg (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, as per above comments. Yann (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a well composed and dynamic photograph. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The cropping of the aircraft/helicopter is unfortunate but the composition is still good. --G Furtado (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I quite like the framing, which focusses on the soldiers (the subject) rather than the helicopter. In any case, the rest of the photograph definitely makes up for it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Moderate oppose I see your point about the framing, but I still think the helicopter shouldn't have been so tightly cropped. I'd let that go, however, if the sky weren't so dark that you have to look around for the blades. Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other opposers. --P e z i (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Bull leaping minoan fresco archmus Heraklion.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:14:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bull leaping in Crete
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by minoan painters - photographed, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More paintings ? This one is fabulous IMO, one of the art masterpieces of the western culture. From Knossos, Crete, typical wall fresco of the Minoan civilization, the cretan Bronze Age (around 1600 BCE). It shows young athletes playing by jumping over a bull, with an enthusiastic spectator. The "sport spirit" existed 3500 years ago. This is the original, on display at the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion. A reconstruction can be seen in the Knossos palace. -- Jebulon (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Surely! Clin 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 03:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Haarlem, molen de Adriaan foto2 2015-01-04 09.37.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 09:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Haarlem-NL, windmill

File:Wieliczka kolaż 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 22:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Views of Wieliczka Salt Mines by Willem Hondius
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: This image is stitched from four views extracted from high-quality scans of a series of hand-colored copperplate maps of the town and salt mines of Wieliczka, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of Poland's major tourist attractions. It provides a detailed depiction of the life and work of men and horses employed in salt mining in the 17th century. You can see miners carving away blocks of rock salt, horse mills powering water pumps and lifts, brine boiling on the surface, men praying in front of an underground altar (sculpted from rock salt), and even one fellow relieving himself against a wall. Engravings by Willem Hondius — composite by Kpalion — uploaded by Kpalion — nominated by KpalionKpalion(talk) 22:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportKpalion(talk) 22:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is the source, it is to dark. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well, it's a mine, so it's dark, but I don't think there are any crushed blacks here. — Kpalion(talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ita140188 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Megaraptor claw cast with scale.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 17:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photograph of a replica of a claw of the first digit of Megaraptor namunhuaiquii with a ruler for scale.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Duffymeg - uploaded by Duffymeg - nominated by IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IJReid (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I personally don't have a problem with images with scale depending on the subject, and have even upload image with ruler as scale myself. However for a FP in this case, the ruler is way too prominent, not really in a style that works well as scale, not horizontal, and either not long enough or too long (it should either be at least as long as the subject or just a small fraction). -- KTC (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KTC. The object might be striking, but the image, in the light of Featured Picture, is to common. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to note KTC, I have now straightened the image as well as cropped it. How is the image too common Jan Arkesteijn? IJReid (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks better, now that you have tidied it, but for a featured picture it misses the wow-effect. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it may be a better FPC for Wikipedia. -- KTC (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Le « temple de la montagne »Site de Vat Phou Champassak, Laos (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 15:15:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Le « temple de la montagne »Site de Vat_Phou Champassak, Laos
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created , uploaded by, - nominated by PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could be more focused. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Eye-catching, good color-play. -- Pofka (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not convinced about the composition and the focus isn't sharp. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Titanium crystal-bars.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 14:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Titanium crystal bars
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me. -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 07:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Our Alchemist is back !--Jebulon (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    Face-blush.svg --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    Surely! Clin 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose When I compare to File:Titan-crystal bar.JPG this one is a much weaker composition. There's useless space in the top left. The bars are longer than necessary to achieve their purpose illustrating the crystal bar. The magnification on each bar is thus so low I can't see any surface detail even at 100% (compared to other FP). In most scenarios where this image could be used (illustrating wiki or a book) the crystals would be too small to see in any quality. The only thing this photo offers that isn't offered by our existing FP is that there are two bars with different crystal structure, but this isn't explained. The dark grey surface has an awful lot of chroma noise. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done additional image describtion added. "... that there are two bars with different crystal structure, but this isn't explained." my explanation: why we can see two exact same perhaps oak trees? Right: they grow simply differently, a chance ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Maracujá em fundo preto (2).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 14:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) in black background.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) in black background. Created and uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp. Lack of DOF. A focus stack will be better for this kind if images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Unsharp? No... this lack of DOF and I knew that, so that's why I did not submitted here. -- RTA 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • You are right, now I'm corrected my text to a more exact describtion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per original image uploader.... -- KTC (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Papilio machaon - Swallowtail 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 09:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swallowtail (Papilio machaon)

Image:HH Ericus1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 23:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Historical building surrounded by modern offices
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by KaiBorgeest - uploaded by KaiBorgeest - nominated by KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not seeing anything above QI here. Relatively low resolution, not exceptionally sharp, lighting is nothing special. -- Colin (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. Might be FP-able without the background, and definitely has value showing the contrast of old and new, but that's it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too usual to be FP. -- Pofka (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Quarzwerke, Werkzeughalle -- 2014 -- 4050.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 19:27:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too poor colors. Dark upper left corner. Composition doesn't work to be FP, sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. I like the colors and the composition. The image quality is very good as well. Das Bild wirkt irgendwie sehr platisch und gleichzeitig sehr abstrakt. Don't know how to say this in English. --Code (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"The picture seems somehow very plastic and at the same time very abstract". That, at least, is what Google Translate comes up with, although I suspect "plastic" is not quite what you meant (But I'm not able right now to run upstairs and find other meanings in my German-English dictionary). Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Mysterious support I shouldn't like this, but I do. I think it's two things: the unexpectedly bright blues on these disused industrial objects, and the strong contrasts of the rusty orange and the deep blues. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The unusual and rather intense color scheme was the reason for the photo, russet, orange and blue.--XRay talk 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unusual and good. Yann (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Code. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The picture was taken in a place with many fascinating motifs. Both the objects and the colors emphasize the technical nature. Thanks to Tomer T for the nomination.--XRay talk 06:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Egyptian Grains.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Egyptian Grains.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoSome Egyptian Grains: Top (orange)= lentil (Lens culinaris), Second (vinous)= bean, Third (brownish)= lentil, Forth (dark yellow)= maize, last one (light yellow)= wheat. This photo won the second prize at Wiki Loves Africa 2014. - created and uploaded by Dinapriv - nominated by لا روسا.--لا روسا (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--لا روسا (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice idea, well done! --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Will support as soon as the cyan chromatic aberration is fixed (visible on the outer edges, even in preview!) --Kreuzschnabel 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We need a better description, this is essential, why on Earth you approved a winning contest with a bad description? I do not know the first grain, the rest a put in order there. And some one needs to fix the weird light hits the beans. And is delightful photo. -- RTA 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Conditional support Now this is how to shoot food. But I would like to see the CA removed and the description improved. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Uoaei1. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good photo but I would like if it could be fixed before we accept it at FP. The CA is really quite visible and there's also very visible JPG blocking (see kidney beans) which suggests a low quality output at some stage. The author is using Photoshop so there's no reason this can't be fixed. Additionally, it has been saved as AdobeRGB rather than sRGB, which is unsuitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like very much the idea but per above. Colin, just curious to know why AdobeRGB is less suitable than sRGB for web images ? (What's a "web" image ?). - Benh (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • A "web image" is an image that is nearly always going to be viewed on a computer using a web browser or mobile app. I keep meaning to write a Commons guideline on it. AdobeRGB is really only good for sending an image directly to a professional printer or magazine, for everyone else it is very likely to result in many people seeing the wrong colours and an increased risk of banding in smooth colour gradients. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral support when chromatic aberration is fixed. --— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 13:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Dr Paul Gachet - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 07:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vincent van Gogh - Dr Paul Gachet

File:La Mary-restored.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 22:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

restored version of a scene of film La Mary
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Unknown - original file downloaded from [[2]] and uploaded by Baute2010 and Galio, restored version by Ezarate - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Very small size. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Could be a historical moment, a VI maybe, but as a photo, nothing here. -- RTA 18:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, La Mary is considered a cult film and all the actors are well known actors in Argentina and other countries, furthermore Carlos Monzón is a best known boxer in the world, it isn't a random photo Ezarateesteban 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, relevant for Argentinian film history. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
¬¬ Could be a historical moment, but as a photo, nothing here. => Esto puede ser un momento histórico, pero la imagen en sí, no tiene nada que alegre los ojos.
And this is a voting for a Featured picture, I'm not even close said that's random, but, this is not a appealing photo
One important thing, Ezarate, could pleas fix the date? This is important, because this is a historical moment, and the license have a direct relation with the date. -- RTA 04:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Ezarateesteban 04:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Smile, but could be more precise? -- RTA 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It was released on 8 August 1974 but I think it was filmed months before that date but I don,t know exactly the date Ezarateesteban 13:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate versionEdit

La Mary-restored1.png

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Due to the comment did by ArionEstar I did a test doing a bigger size image but I think is too exagerated --Ezarateesteban 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's in the rules: an image (with the exception of SVG) must have more than 2 Mpx. And when the image has a good size, the level of details is bigger. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It may be within the rules but where’s the wow? --Kreuzschnabel 08:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
See my argument below, please Ezarateesteban 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Abejas (Lasioglossum calceatum) en una Kniphofia caulescens, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 02.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 20:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bees (Lasioglossum calceatum) on a Kniphofia caulescens, Munich Botanical Garden, Germany.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bees (Lasioglossum calceatum) on a Kniphofia caulescens, Munich Botanical Garden, Germany. Poco2 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. The left side flower is blurred at the top. Not sure if it is due to motion blur or being outside of the focal plane, but it's a bit unfortunate. I think perhaps it would have been better to have photographed just a single flower in a bit more detail. Diliff (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    David: I see your point. You mean something like this? Poco2 00:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think that image is slightly better. But now the bottom of the flower is out of focus. You didn't keep the plane of focus in line with the stem and I guess it was leaning slightly, so the top is either closer or further away from you. Diliff (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Seljalandsfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 201-203 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 20:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset view from the back of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, Suðurland, Iceland. The waterfall of the river Seljalandsá drops 60 metres (200 ft) over the cliffs of the former coastline.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sunset view from the back of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, Suðurland, Iceland. The waterfall of the river Seljalandsá drops 60 metres (200 ft) over the cliffs of the former coastline. All by me, Poco2 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lucien (es·m·com) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is great. Not the processing. Oversaturated, shadow too heavily recovered on the right (strange that it's only on the right). Some blue fringing. Maybe this can be fixed - Benh (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Benh: I have finetuned the luminosity of the shadowed areas and reduced the frindge. I haven't touched the saturation because I believe that the picture is pretty realistic and I have applied the standard configuration that I have been using for years. Btw, I think that this one is probably the most solid FP candidate I had, ever. That makes me sadly believe that I will always get your opposing votes. It is fine to challenge other FP-experienced photographers, but if this picture is not an FP then I got lost... Poco2 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    A configuration doesn't work the same for all sources of picture. I still maintain the processing screwed up (a little) the otherwise great scene. Now for my voting scheme : you flood FPC with candidates and it doesn't appear to me that you apply a strict filtering before ur pic gets the candidate label (and ur very own "solid FP candidate" comment seems to confirm that). FPC has to be special, and I hope it remains so. Don't be surprised to get opposes from me as I'm the kind of demanding nitpicking guy (I try to remain "fair" though). As for why I oppose this one vs neutral the stair nom. which had issues as well, I consider they may have forbid you from getting ur tripod out which I consider a mitigating reason (but u didn't share), while a processing can be done again and again. No mitigating reason : much higher expectations. - Benh (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    Benh:::I think that you misunderstood my comment. This picture is probably one of my best pictures, ever, and will stay as my desktop image for a while. You cannot expect that I nominate only those pictures that, I believe, are the best picture have ever I shot. In that case I'd show up here every 2 years at most. I have made some numbers and checked all FPCs initiated by me in Commons and checked the result of them: 162 out of 289 were successful (56% success rate). It may be poor for you, but I'm satisfied with that. You may call that flooding, that's a tough word. Flooding would be 2 nominations per day but there are rules, that I agree with, to avoid that. I see it from a different point of view, out of my last 5 nominations 0% were successful and that is not normal, and no, I don't think that I have lowered the bar for FPCs. Regarding your comment about "mitigating reasons", that surprised me, especially after your statement in a recent nomination saying "only the result counts". Finally, I'd like to remind you again that comments like "cheap", "trivial", "randomed" are out of place when you judge the work of others (not the case in this nominations, but in others). I find that kind of comments unrespectful and discouraging. You can be a nitpicking guy but stay respectful Poco2 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think what Benh meant is that if this is the best FP image you've ever taken (and was taken in August last year), why have you nominated so many inferior images recently? I know you probably have quite a large backlog of images that you haven't had time to process and upload and I can see this was uploaded just prior to nomination, but I think his point is still fair - it's probably better to nominate your best images as a priority. Anyway, of course it's your choice, but I have noticed that many of your nomination images have not been as consistently good recently. Diliff (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I have a big backlog, that is getting smaller now due to missing equipment, but still go around 2000 pictures from December/January. Sometimes I also wait for contests like WLE or WLM. Poco2 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Come on Poco... yes the result counts. But I still do know when it's impossible to do otherwise (and I still don't know for the stairs, just out of curiosity). Regarding the result counts nom, it would be just a matter of waiting spring or summer, but I thought it was clear to all... And yes I may be a bit too sincere, and that's because I don't play game or whatever. None of my negative comments are free. If there's any (there must be some which has slipped), then I'm very sorry. - Benh (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing colors. --King of ♠ 05:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually per Benh - from a technical point of view. Support-wise per others... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Awed The technical mistakes, such as they are, give it an otherworldly quality, like a sci-fi novel cover. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Dэя-Бøяg 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very great wow factor. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I agree with Benh too, the processing is not as good as it could be. Maybe you're right that the saturation is accurate (it does seem a bit too much for me though), but there are haloes around the cave where the sky begins. How is this processed? Is it an exposure blend, or did you recover shadows and highlights? In any case, I agree with you, the wow of the scene makes up for these technical deficiencies. This image fixes the main complaint I had about your previous nomination of this waterfall: the cropped pool. Diliff (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow --· Favalli ⟡ 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When I first saw this my reaction was that Poco had leant on the saturation slider. But Googling for the subject shows it can often be lit spectacularly and colourfully, though there are plenty times also when the light is not good. Good catch. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But I somewhat agree with the comments above. Perhaps a slight change in balance towards wow over quantity would be good. More images like this, please. --DXR (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stryn (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing colors and nature feeling, Wow Poco, nice shoot --The_Photographer (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 20:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ----Hafspajen 16:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks over processed to me. Seems good for my Imac screen saver, and I'm afraid it is not a compliment. I find it a bit "too much" and agressive, sorry (oversaturated ?). But it is just a matter of taste, and I understand the lot of supports.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Ceiling bracket detail at chapel, Greenwich Hospital, London.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A highly decorated bracket on the ceiling near the south window at the Greenwich Hospital chapel.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The last of my three noms from the inside of the chapel at Greenwich Hospital, London. -- Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors and well chosen composition. Very pleasant sigth. --Mile (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I'm not crazy about the composition to be honest. It doesn't seem 'naturally framed', as the top left corners are cut off. Diliff (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't have too much to work with if I wanted this to be good. I actually cropped some more off the right yesterday before nominating because that had some distracting light there. There isn't much more on those upper left corners. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually Daniel, coincidentally I also visited the chapel and Painted Hall at Greenwich Hospital yesterday but unfortunately wasn't able to take any of the kind of quality photos you'd expect of me. The problem with visiting randomly is that you're at the mercy of whatever event is going on at the time - the chapel had choir singing practice for the entire afternoon until closure, taking over the front of one whole side aisle with quite a big group so although it was really beautiful singing, it wasn't really conducive to photography. I took a few photos of details such as this but nothing that I was happy with. The tonality was very different though, as the interior lighting was stronger and the light from outside was fairly dark and overcast. I won't link to any of my images of it here as I don't want to distract from your nomination but I'll post something on your talk page. And the Painted Hall was a bit busy with lots of volunteers buzzing around. I was specifically told not to use my tripod in there too, which is pretty much essential for high quality photography. I took a few hand-held panoramas to get an idea of what I could expect, but hand-held indoors usually results in stitching errors and mine were no exception so nothing I took was publishable on Commons. I'm hoping to visit another time and see if I have more luck with finding the two interiors a bit quieter. Apologies for spamming your nomination. ;-) Diliff (

talk) 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No problems. Looking forward to seeing your images. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot. Great eye for details. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see anything special about it. It looks like a random composed part of the ceiling. The cropping is too tight. Nice to illustrate an article but not an FP in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Similar to Benh. I do support the idea of taking and uploading "detail" photographs rather than "fit the entire interior into one huge photo" approach always. That the result will often not have wow or composition enough for FP is not a reason to refrain from such image making -- a comprehensive set of photos of a building is valuable and we can't expect all to be spectacular. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good composition, good lighting, good sharpness. May be that there are similar photos but this one is very good too. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Crown of Thorns Starfish at Malapascuas Island.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 17:43:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Matt Kieffer - uploaded by Unbuttered Parsnip - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exceptional images may sometimes not be of extremely high quality. Here's a rare sea star, which we know only a few specimens reassembled by trawlers. This is the first time it was photographed in its natural environment. We are fortunate that this image is poured into COMMONS. Thanks to the work of Wikipedians that encourage underwater photographers to submit their images. They deserve our gratitude.-- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unique picture of an extremely rare animal, with satisfactory technical quality (all the more given the conditions of light and depth), and beautiful aesthetics. Such pictures are precious treasures for Wiki projects. FredD (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It falls short on technical side. How sad it was shot with a Sony DSC-TX7... but I'm convinced by the explanations of Archaeodontosaurus. - Benh (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support anyway, rare stuff, with Plasma all over ? --Mile (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also it has beautiful colors. And I also support the Mile's version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support I totally agree with the nominator. Outstanding and unique educational and scientific value. As FredD said Such pictures are precious treasures for Wiki projects. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong white balance, easily corrected. Yann (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ----Hafspajen 16:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit

Crown of Thorns Starfish at Malapascuas Island v. II.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment worth to save...could you see if this one is better, green level lowered. --Mile (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also support the Mile's version. @Yann: It's better? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. Yann (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this one is more natural. --Mile (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Baresi F (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Luscinia cyane - Khao Yai.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 17:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Siberian Blue Robin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JJ Harrison - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 17:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1989 17:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a JJ Harrison, where is this guys ? -- RTA 18:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just love this bird color! -- Pofka (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tsjuder, Jan-Erik „Nag“ Romøren at Party.San Metal Open Air 2013.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 07:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jan-Erik „Nag“ Romøren of Tsjuder at Party.San Metal Open Air 2013

File:Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 01:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ranks with your best work in Britain. Love the raking light on the aisle floor. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I often read about the technical achievements of user:Diliff but they most of the time serve already beautiful, extremely well thought and composed pictures. Here I love the wide angle stretching. Enough to give us a feel of how big the place is, but not as far as to scream "distorsion" (in the sense non aesthetic). The side and subtle coloured lighting is also very beautiful and fortunate. In short : big wow ! (and in my head "how come I didn't get to shot this myself ??") - Benh (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Benh. Well, all I can say is: If it was always there, why didn't you visit? ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I actually never noticed that one. But the truth is I don't really go after churches... Also, I don't have that "eye" to notice when a scene can render great. It's pretty much like the "pont neuf" panorama, which I was in front of dozens of time, with all my gear set up and ready to fire up, but never thought it would render so nice. I once thought getting good gear would bring me great pics, but there seems to be something else. - Benh (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Correction. I entered that church once, but thought it wasn't worth a shot. This confirms my previous statement :) - Benh (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Come on Benh, I love coming back to your images (and Diliff's, too, but that is obvious...). If you don't have an eye, then 98% of people are blind ;-). I feel that I haven't taken one truly good image of my actual home town and sometimes a fresh location and the mindset of travelling just help to make something different. --DXR (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Thanks DXR :) Now I really look like the guy who fished for contradiction. I agree with you too yet some people living in London can take good pics of their hometown :) (and even though my last trip was fruitless in term of good pics). - Benh (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
              • The light often makes or breaks the photo Benh. Maybe it just wasn't lit up very nicely on the day you entered. There are plenty of churches in which the lighting just makes it very difficult to photograph well, such as this one. It was even more monochromatic yellow originally, that image you see on Commons is my attempt to desaturate it a bit but it's still very.... yellow. I still take the photo of course, but I'm not always happy with the results. Diliff (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
                • I'm afraid it's my eyes... I saw it in white and gold. Think this disqualifies me as a reviewer on FPC :) - Benh (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • Benh, anyone who saw that dress in white and gold should sell their photo gear and take up poetry instead. It most certainly disqualifies you. Quite remarkable how many visually incorrect people there are! -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
                    • I have to admit, I felt the same way after seeing that dress. I really tried over and over to adjust my display and viewing conditions to see if I could recreate what others were seeing and I just couldn't. It was an incredibly poorly photographed dress though, grossly overexposed with an overly warm white balance, but even so, it was never even close to gold and white. :-) Diliff (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Depth of field is well handled to be sharp-enough from front to back. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, as always --DXR (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The right pillar is broken?--Claus (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like a kind of furniture to me - Benh (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    Not a "furniture", just a result of this, during the Mass of the Passion, 88 persons killed, 68 wounded.--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Basilica of Saint Clotilde Pulpit, Paris, France - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 00:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basilica of Saint Clotilde Pulpit

File:ANTS LAIKMAA 1936 Taebla maastik.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 01:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Taebla landscape
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stanislav Stepashko - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Taebla landscape" by Ants Laikmaa. This repro comes direcly from Enn Kunila's collection.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Occasionally here are some rather crappy and/or small repros, that get plenty of support votes. Now I'm bit confused after my first test with nominating artworks. What is exactly missing here? (votes for sure; but on the image) Kruusamägi (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:ANTS LAIKMAA 1925 Autoportree.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 01:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ants Laikmaa self-portrait
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stanislav Stepashko - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This repro is gotten direcly from Enn Kunila's collection. It is self-portrait of one of the most well-known Estonian artists, Ants Laikmaa.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:STS-135 final flyaround of ISS 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2015 at 05:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Space ISS NASA
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Final fly-around of the International Space Station by the Space Shuttle. Created by NASA - uploaded by Leebrandoncremer/Craigboy - nominated by Craigboy -- Craigboy (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Craigboy (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much wow, well detailed and exposed. --Kreuzschnabel 09:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not everyone of us could capture such picture due to its location (in fact probably nobody), however the quality and resolution of this one is quite low. If another object or view would be captured with such quality, I don't think it would have a chance here. -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Imho this is a somewhat confused argument. I'm fine with opposing due to wow or stuff like that but your reason is a bit odd. Firstly, the quality is perfectly fine, shot with a slightly older pro DSLR. NASA need to rely on what the camera manufacturers offer in the rugged and reliable class and at the end of the day such cameras don't have 36 or 50 MP as of now. Also the entire point is that the image is in space, the fact that I can shoot the house next door in higher resolution is totally irrelevant, isn't it? --DXR (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
My point is that we don't have to make every NASA photo FP just because it is taken in space. Zoom in the satellite. It is unsharp and some details are really poorly visible. I'm not telling that this picture is a crap, but I think the rules should be same for all and there shouldn't be exceptions just because they don't have better cameras up there. In my opinion, it should fit perfectly as valued image, not FP. -- Pofka (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The space station might not be highly detailed but I definitely cannot see anything unsharp or blurred in it. As for the wow factor, that’s a thing we all see different of course. Objects or places unfamiliar to us bring a wow factor along that biases us into featuring the image while others shake their heads, as I did in this nomination (buy any issue of any flying magazine, and you’ll get dozens of perfectly sharp in-flight shots, so this kind of pictures is not unfamiliar to me, so the image in question hadn’t enough wow in my eyes to compensate for the blurred wing.) Others, having a different approach from a different experience, granted the image lots of wow to support. That’s why we have majority votes here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The image is of similar quality to other featured space images. It's not just some space image, it's an image of an extremely significant event (completion of USOS, final Space Shuttle mission).--Craigboy (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The technical quality of this shot is very nice. The lens is well sharp at 100% on the subject and the photograph hasn't been over-sharpened. Nikon's camera shines with no noise in the dark areas. The background has been brushed, not very nicely in some areas, to get rid of the compression artefacts. An issue which can be easily cleaned. Sting (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Jesus Christ of Gian Lorenzo Bernini in San Sebastiano fuori le mura (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2015 at 20:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jesus Christ of Gian Lorenzo Bernini in San Sebastiano fuori le mura (Rome)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Generally good detail but the bright side of the face shows too many blown areas, leading to loss of detail at least in the hair section. This is not an easy shot to take I am sure. Chroma noise in background. --Kreuzschnabel 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It would have to be superb to get a photo of a statue featured. Think of the care that goes into portraits. This is just a photo of a statue taken by a DSLR. What is the wow? -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colin said it all. - Benh (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am quite surprised at the support votes for this image, which doesn't even deserve a QI. It is an arbitrary crop of the full bust which properly shows Jesus' hand blessing, rather than just his fingertips. The only reason for this framing I can think of is that the lower part of the bust is even more badly lit than the upper. The image had been processed such that it has heavy posterisation (see the background and the shadows). The lighting on the face is very poor and wouldn't be accepted for a portrait. -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin --P e z i (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. Yann (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality and light. --A.Savin 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Doña Isabel Cobos de Porc by Francisco Goya.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2015 at 00:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Geranium wallichianum 'Buxton’s Blue’ 04.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 18:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Geranium wallichianum 'Buxton’s Blue’
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Geranium wallichianum 'Buxton's Variety'. flowering period is from about June to September in partial shade. G. wallichianum originates from the Himalayas (from Afghanistan to Kashmir) in the mountains over large distances up to a height of 3500 meters. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Too busy in the background—see my suggested crop. Symbol support vote.svg Support I still would have squared it up, but I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Other crop.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hafspajen 16:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Egyptian food Koshary.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Egyptian food Koshary
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A plate of the most famous Egyptian dish, known as Koshary. Its Also known in several other parts of the Arab World and the Middle East--باسم (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Something different, and interesting. --Mile (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support - Different and nice composition; not happy about the darker right part of the picture. But all in all thumbs up. --Pugilist (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the uneven lighting. I’d excuse this on a landscape scenery but it’s too large a flaw on a studio shot FPC. --Kreuzschnabel 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree about the lighting. If you have a raw file and can apply a gradient filter to lighten the right, that might help. Also, please save the file as sRGB since AdobeRGB is not suitable for web images (few people will see the right colours). -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--لا روسا (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting is unfortunate but I really like the composition --· Favalli ⟡ 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin and Kreuzschnabel. And I don't think the composition is striking enough. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very colorful. --King of ♠ 05:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Light don't bother me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A graceful composition, the dark area do not irritates me, gives, I don't know, a mystery to the photo; however, the lack of sharpness... ok a kit lens (a kit lens in a D700 o.O), but this lens works better at lower f-stop, and in a flat image like that, DOF is not a issue, and maybe a better angle of view... -- RTA 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tajines in a pottery shop in Morocco.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tajines in a pottery shop in Morocco
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Colourful Image of several decorated Tajines in a pottery shop in Morocco--باسم (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Need WB and QI criteria overexposed.svg Overexposed correction --The_Photographer (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do like it, even the blueish WB, and I find the exposition fine. A bit small, but I don't think extra pixels would bring something here. - Benh (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice... Love the colours. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Lots of interest, and decent quality. As Benh said, a bit small, but detailed enough. Diliff (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice. It looks partially overexposed. Resolution very small. --XRay talk 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--لا روسا (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Nothing special in this "tourist shop photograph" (no offence) ; I don't like the heavy blue sky reflects on the highly reflective pottery, it denatures their beauty. Sting (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
btw: no metadata, no color profile. Sting (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice suject. Interesing objects. Reflections don't bother me. Wow for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful colours, sharp enough. Although you lose some information, keep that in mind for the next, and why it is so small? "OE correction" hehhehehe, ai ai... -- RTA 18:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hafspajen 16:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Salems kyrka September 2014 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 13:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Salems church
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Salems church at lake Bornsjön, outside Stockholm. The church was inaugurated in 1176. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Using a DJI S1000? --The_Photographer (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • No, its was taken from a helicopter.--ArildV (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for contrast, it’s too dark in most parts. Some red objects seem oversaturated. I guess it’s overprocessed. --Kreuzschnabel 10:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kreuzschnabel: Did you prefer the first version or something in between?--ArildV (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded.--ArildV (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Île de la Cité shortly before sunrise, West View 140320 1.jpg (delist), not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 12:04:28

Original
Île de la Cité shortly before sunrise, West View 140320 1.jpg


New crop

Île de la Cité shortly before sunrise, West View 140320 1.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I want to crop this image, but it is a FP. I hope you will agree. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace  ■ MMXX talk 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Yann (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace cropped version (with fewer water). Just love these lights all over the picture. -- Pofka (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pofka here you can tell or delist or not,isn't a vote for FP.Thanks.--LivioAndronico talk 22:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace I think the crop much improves this already wonderful panorama (wish I'd taken it myself). - Benh (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It only removes information from the picture. May be not very useful information but it only costs a few bytes to let it there. --G Furtado (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment yes, Venus (top middle) is gone...--93.144.85.146 01:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • PS: currently both pictures target is the original nom
      • Yes, that's deliberate. The nom is asking for permission to actually make the crop. -- KTC (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as creator. Paris 16 has shown me this crop some time ago and I like both versions. --DXR (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace --Claus (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:RiP2013 GreenDay Mike Dirnt 0002.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 08:43:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mike Dirnt, singer and bassist of Green Day, stands on the Centerstage during Rock im Park-Festival 2013.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sven0705 - uploaded by Sven0705 - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All the way for Green Day! -- Pofka (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very good composition and atmosphere. Pity his right hand is so unsharp. I’m not entirely sold on this. --Kreuzschnabel 10:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow overweighs minor technical concern. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a benchmark for festival photographers ... --rs-foto (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nicely done. I love the colors and the composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Chín Mây from An Bình, Vietnam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 01:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by myself. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is Chín Mây, a lovely 80 y old Vietnamese. More in the file description. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs more contrast. Sky looks overexposed.--XRay talk 17:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks! I've tried to address those two issues but I'm wondering if the sky is not turning a bit grey now? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Now this one I think is an FP—if you crop in a bit more of the top and bottom to square it up a bit. His posture, motion and facial expression are great. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I gave it a go but I'm not convinced—I kinda liked the idea of seeing a bit more of the boat? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Polite support You met me halfway, and didn't take out anything that was good. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Haha! I just gave it another go but it's even harder to see that we're on a boat now. It's like if there was no more clue of the context/setting, which I found to be valuable? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Au contraire, this is about what I would have done. We can still tell he's on a boat, and this draws more attention to his paddling. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfavorable light, washed out colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You are right to say that it's washed out but note that it doesn't look that wrong to me since the sky over here is often weird—for example, I rarely can see the blue sky during the day, and thus even though there doesn't seem to be any clouds around. It's like if the sky was never clear and that the whole atmosphere was always misty. This tends to provide some interesting/strange ambiances during the golden hours. Note also that I'm referring to the skies that I know from Da Nang, and am not sure if it's also the case for where I took this photo as I didn't stay long over there. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That being said, I have greatly lowered the highlights so it's also possible that it's washed out due to the post-processing :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Valletta Lower Barrakka gardens Malta 2014 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 16:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Monument to Alexander Ball in Lower Barrakka Gardens in Valletta, Malta
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed—see blown highlights on fountain rim and water. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Good lighting and composition. I would like to give it a try, despite some issues and unnecessary people in the picture (yet not so annoying ones like with previous photo full of tourists). -- Pofka (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose chromatic aberration, perspective distortion, overexposure, and wanting composition (fence cut off on the right). Nice scene but technical quality too poor for me. --Kreuzschnabel 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the image quality isn't FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture of a nice place; but never ever FP. --P e z i (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Kawah-Ijen Indonesia Ijen-Sulfur-Miner-01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 15:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ijen Volcano, Banyuwangi Regency, East Java, Indonesia: A indonesian sulfur miner carrying two baskests with his 90-kg-load of sulfur.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An indonesian sulfur miner of Ijen Volcano in Indonesia is carrying his 90-kg-load of sulfur from the floor of the volcano to the valley where he is getting paid. All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 18:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Striking portrait, good quality. --Kreuzschnabel 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --DXR (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very National Geographic-worthy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very good picture (what will he get for his 90-kg-load?); I really like it -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Every miner can do the trip maximum 2 times a day. They get a total of 13 $ for 180 kg Sulfur. Older miners only can shoulder 75 kg per walk. Sometimes they have no revenue because the crater is emitting poisonous gases and is closed for mining. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sky is a little overexposed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • ^What??-- RTA 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, could you pleas illuminate the shadow areas? His face is too dark for me. -- RTA 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is a tanned indonesian worker with dark skin complexion. You can see every detail of his skin in 100% resolution. I don't think, that brightening is the right way to enhance this photo. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info You are wrong! Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Check, and I could push further, but I'm too lazy for that, and this could be better, even without cheating... -- RTA 03:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The link is not working and I don't understand why you think, that I am cheating. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Not working? Ok, try this one, and I did not wrote that you are cheating, what I said was you could improve the image, without cheating, as using a hardcore edition mode at Photoshop. -- RTA 09:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
            • I tried your proposal and raised the darks. However the result changed the mood of the photo so I decided not to upload another version. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you for this excellent ethnographical document (I've seen a report about this on the french TV)--Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very high EV. --P e z i (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 14:12:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lookout Tower on Borówkowa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The top of the tower and the trees on the right could be a little sharper, but I think these are minor issues. The composition is great. Very good work! --Code (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image has been deformed to put back the result of perspective, but the effects are to striking. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jan Arkesteijn. Perspective looks wrong, especially at the top of the tower → overcorrected? Otherwise a great image, of course. --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Jan Arkesteijn, El Grafo - Perspective correction is in order, see the notes. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Jacek Halicki: forcing straight verticals is not always a good idea. It only works if you have something like a reasonably flat wall. As soon as you have three-dimensional features that tell the beholder that the image was actually taken at an angle (here: upward), the whole idea of being able to "correct" a perspective falls apart. In this case, I'm looking at the underside of the tower's roof, while from the (apparent) perspective I would expect to be able to see much less of the underside – maybe even a bit of the upper side and the tip. Or in other words: Imagine the tower as a cylinder and the roof as a cone. Then the cone would not be lying flat on the top of the cylinder. Its vertical axis would be angled (to the back and a bit to the right at the top) relative to the cone's vertical axis. If not bolted into place, it would just slide off and fall to the ground. Sorry, but that just looks very wrong.
    Tuning down the "perspective correction" to allow the verticals of the tower to slightly converge at the top would probably take care of that problem. (Note that it's perfectly normal to have lines converging in the distance.) --El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jan Arkesteijn. Perspective straightening does not work on an extreme low-angle shot. So the tower appears to be viewed from the side while still showing the roof’s underside. This looks entirely askew. --Kreuzschnabel 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Jan Arkesteijn, El Grafo, Kreuzschnabel - Look again. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You have corrected the roof falling to the right, which indeed looks much better, but the main issue remains unresolved. You still have two different perspectives (camera positions) in one image. 1) one (true) perspective, where the camera is looking up under the roof. 2) one simulated perspective, where the camera is located further back and orientated horizontally, looking straight at the rest of the tower without looking up. That's why the roof still seems to slide off the tower (backwards, away from the camera). The only way to fix this is to step away from the illusion that one can change the perspective a picture of a 3D object like this was taken from in post processing and allow those verticals to converge at the top. --El Grafo (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image:Le Capitole à Timgad.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 11:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roman Capitol of Timgad
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by + uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Ana al'ain (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ana al'ain (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hi Ana al'ain, I uploaded an edited version here, as you're the nominator you can use it as an alternative if you want. -- Christian Ferrer 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad vignetting in all corners, red hotpixel, strong noise in the sky, little sharpness in the corners, unnaturally edited sky and perspective distortion. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hi Christian Ferrer - thank you for the edited version! It is really better with the bluer sky and the upright columns. Can you also correct the other problems Julian H. mentioned? It is my first attempt for a nomitation, so I don't know the process. How can I change the image? First I put it under this info. --Ana al'ain (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I did everything I could. It's a very pretty picture...but quality requirements are very high here. -- Christian Ferrer 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

edited Version of Christian Ferrer
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Edited version, corrected issues that Julian H. mentioned in the measure of my ability. -- Christian Ferrer 16:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you did a really good job correcting what is correctable. Sadly, some things are correctable only with access to the unedited file and some are probably not correctable at all (especially the bottom corners). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems the clouds came out of the pillars. Yann (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kann man sich drin verlieren, prima!--Finderhannes (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Um auf FPC abstimmen zu können brauchst du leider mindestens 50 Edits. --DXR (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good looking thumbnail but vignetting and noise in the sky (even though author seems to have hopelessly blurred it). Weird edge between the sky and the rest. Exposures blending ? Sky pasted over ? Cheap work, but looks like it was necessary to achieve the dramatic effect. - Benh (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better than above but still not a FP in my opinion. Oversharpening, blurred lower left corner, high noise level, etc. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with others. This one is way oversharpened (sharpening artifacts against the sky) and still shows poor detail. Of course, information not present in the original image cannot be regained by editing. Pity, it’s a really nice scene but a better gear was needed here. --Kreuzschnabel 09:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Car at Car Graveyard.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 10:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A abandoned car in an Belgium Car graveyard.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Abigor -- Abigor talk 10:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Abigor talk 10:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it looks blurred to me. The exposure time looks reasonable but nothing is really sharp and a few areas suggest a diagonal camera shake. A few areas are also slightly overexposed. It's not very bad but for such a relatively simple subject, I'd expect more quality. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special for FP. The image description page could do with better description and categories. I assume this image is from Chatillon car graveyard and so there are far better photo opportunities than just one rusted car. -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin and Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm also an owner of a carwreck image Carwreck in the outback.jpg ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin and Julian. --P e z i (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Echafaudage Tour de la Lanterne La Rochelle.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 16:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tour de la Lanterne, échafaudée
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Evening light on the "Tour de la Lanterne" (lantern tower, 14th-century) an iconic monument of the harbor of La Rochelle, my native city. On January 1st, 2015, it was fully covered by a scaffolding for a restoration. Not an usual picture-- Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesing picture of a monument restoration. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • More scaffoldings !Clin--Jebulon (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, of course! Smile 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree. Hard to make scaffolding look good. Well done. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very interesting and indeed unusual. Good light and quality. I personally think the crop is a bit unbalanced, perhaps the tower at the left is relevant, but from a FP perspective it tends to pull my view from the main subject. I tried a 16:9 Crop on the tower itself and I think it is more powerful, but of course your choice. --DXR (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand your comment: I have other views without the "Tour Saint-Jean". But I've chosen this one because the Tour de la Lanterne is part of an urban landscape, and I wanted to show that it is not alone in the middle of nothing. I think it added something in the composition, as a justification of the not centered presentation. Matter of taste I suppose. Thanks for review and interesting comment anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is reasonable and it's your decision. I Symbol support vote.svg Support because the image still is outstanding. --DXR (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Evening light... but from behind which renders subjects flat, and a bit impressionistic at the top (maybe it was just too hot). Otherwise an interesting subject, enough to earn my support. - Benh (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 02:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jane Digby, Lady Ellenborough, by William Charles Ross.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 15:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Skopje - panorama from fortress.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 12:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skopje, Macedonia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but a 3MP panorama isn't going to wow anyone in 2015. Quite heavily distorted and random composition. -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but per Colin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dimcho H. Dimov (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. - Benh (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per others. Yann (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others; banding visible and compositionally this is nothing special. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Milseburg (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Nice yet not outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel 07:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. No wow. Usual shot. -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Intern of Church of San Francesco in Amelia.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 20:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Intern of Church of San Francesco in Amelia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It has lovely color-play. I really like that warm light coming from the altar, however isn't its a bit too dark at parts? Benches are barely visible. I still like the view and will stay with neutral here and let others decide. Difficult to select between support and oppose. Lovely detail, composition, but colors are a bit lacking for me. -- Pofka (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In these photos you have to find a middle ground, both among the lights of the altar (very clear and the rest of the church dark) and between the roof and the base of the church, if I put more in evidence the benches I would not take well roof, or vice versa, a little bit of all, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Diliff approach works... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a QI. Quite soft overall and the stained glass is blown. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done thanks --LivioAndronico talk 12:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @LivioAndronico: the gaussian blur (softness) ist still too much. Why??? Please rework it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
i.e. better or worse than before?--LivioAndronico talk 12:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
neither both ... try to rework your image without "blur", for more sharpness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
LivioAndronico, the overall softness is not fixed by cranking the sharpening/clarity filter over to the max, nor is a completely blown window recovered by reducing white so that the bright-outside is merely off-white. The adjustment you made is terrible. The original picture was only QI but now it wouldn't even merit that. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Returning to the first version Alchemist-hp,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cold colors, and boring composition. I would get a bigger tripod if I were you (not a fan of the 5 years old point of view). Not an objective comment but I'm not too keen on your processing. Either NR is too strong or you do play too much with blur. - Benh (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support though the windows are very bright. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support per Spurzem --Llez (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me, any church interior has wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The upper half of this image is quite empty. I propose to crop most of the ceiling, see two proposals for cropping in the image notes. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Uoaei1 ,thanks for review --LivioAndronico talk 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support This looks much better now for me! --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Paestum BW 2013-05-17 15-01-57.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 17:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Italy, Paestum, Temple of Hera II (sometimes called the Temple of Neptune)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Tourists ruins this picture. If it would be possible to remove them (or you have another version without them), I think it would look better. The sky, lighting, building looks awesome but these tourists just automatically distracts you from the building. -- Pofka (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I took intentionally this picture, the tourists make it possible to compare the size of the temple --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tourists stop it from being FP. There are plenty other clues to scale such as the fence (which is typically around waist height), the grass and trees. -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Benh, yes I was aware of that photo when saying this, and by your smilie I think you are aware there's a world of a difference. If this photo had a photogenic couple staring at the monument, perhaps, or if it was so crowded with tourists that they were an interesting feature, but we've just got a random assortment of tourists looking every which way. Makes it look like the unfortunate photos everyone gets when going with a tour group, rather than a featured picture where the photographer has gone at a special time of day or captured a special moment, or simply avoided the crowd. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tourists at a tourist attraction? Imagine that ... People go to see these things from all over the world; they are part of their modern story. While they weren't necessary, they do not detract from it, either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support due to the tourists, but very nice atmosphere. --King of ♠ 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 13:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Weird artifacts all over the picture. Strange looking clouds. Harsh and flat light. Disturbing shadow on the bottom right. Tourists don't help either IMO. - Benh (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry I have to agree with Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, not an outstanding image. The main subject is not very rich in detail, and the tourists (white clothes mainly blown) are disturbing. Would be different if they all were looking at the building. --Kreuzschnabel 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the fact that the light is coming directly from behind is a problem here because it makes the columns blend together. As a result, the depth of the building is very undefined. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The tourist is not a issue here, actually is good, gives scale, but the columns are in a light that do not allow us to see correctly. (you could demolish the columns at the back :P). -- RTA 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Good quality but not excellent. --Milseburg (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech HDR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 13:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wojciech Sanatorium in Lądek-Zdrój
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good! --Code (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not really keen on the composition, with the water feature/basin and pot-plants at the bottom. Based on this photo I wonder if the same central view could have been achieved from a viewpoint further round, that wouldn't have these distractions at the bottom. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. The fact that the foreground isn't centered makes it more distracting. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great job! --rs-foto (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Church of St. Teresa Interior 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 09:37:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St. Teresa Interior. Vilnius, Lithuania.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • technically perfect, but the distortion on both sides are too big and ugly, sorry --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I think I'd have to agree with you. It was not one of my most successful interiors. I didn't do the scene justice. Diliff (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The altar (and decorations around it, especially top) is captured perfectly here. That's why I've nominated this one. Certainly, not best Diliff interior picture, but without doubt best picture of this church in Commons. This church interior looks so dark in all other photos and this one has that warm gold gloss and lovely detail. There is another version taken from further, however I prefer this one altar-only over it. -- Pofka (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For "best picture of a topic/scope" we have com:VIC. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, as a suggestion, maybe I could crop this image so that the distortion is minimised. There isn't a lot of visual interest beyond the altar anyway. What do you think Pofka / Wladyslaw? Diliff (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not Pofka nor Wladyslaw, but I was trying the same at home and think it's worth the try (and in the hope you provide an enlarged crop). - Benh (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I really believe this photo has a chance to be FP. Not only because it is "best picture of a topic/scope", but because it is a really good capture of altar. As Diliff said, there really isn't a lot interesting before the altar (interior paintings requires restoration, IMO). Altar definitely is the main figure in this church. Previously I saw when some windows or doors became FP. Why altar alone can't? Try cropping it, Diliff, if that is really required. :) -- Pofka (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Pofka. Wladyslaw, Colin, Benh, I've reprocessed the image from the original files. I've been able to crop it so that the altar comprises most of the frame, while maintaining the original resolution (actually the horizontal resolution of 6000px is the same, but the vertical res is actually higher now - 4764px vs 4388px previously - due to the aspect ratio change). I've also made some minor changes to the exposure too (slightly brighter, more neutral WB, less overexposure in bright areas) which I hope is a slight improvement. There is still some distortion on the top corners of the altar, but this is still an ultrawide view and can't really be helped. You can decide whether it's enough of a change to support, but I believe the changes are significant enough to justify a second look at least. ;-) Diliff (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's just exactly what I was speaking about. Great. This altar alone is impressive enough. -- Pofka (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above Symbol support vote.svg Support now. Great. -- Colin (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Reprocessing from the original RAWs gives it just enough to get over the line for me. Diliff (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per David. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better, the arch were just too painful to look at. Not your best, but as mentioned elsewhere, the bar is so high... - Benh (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kreuzschnabel 07:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Vytautas The Great Church Interior, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 09:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vytautas The Great Church Interior.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. A simple church interior with a low ceiling (almost feels like you are in a cave), but I found it quite beautiful in its simplicity inside. Diliff (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diliff always taking good pictures. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The exposure and fine detail are very good. -- Colin (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little different architecturally from the sanctuaries you usually shoot, but you handled it just as well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Francesco Hayez 008.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2015 at 00:55:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist: I don't like this guy (Original nomination)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace -- Claus (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please comment the reason for replacement - I am not sure what pic meets the real colours of this artwork more precise because they really differ -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Yann (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace --Hafspajen 21:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Definitely looks better! ///EuroCarGT 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace --Paris 16 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Kruusamägi (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace --Ximonic (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

File:York Minster Choir, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2015 at 10:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

York Minster Choir
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. There are some ghostly persons in the background. They are not really disturbing, but maybe you can change this. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Windows in the back neat the top of the arch slightly blown but do we really need to fix that? Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, Diliff what happened to the closest elements? They are stretched. Just for curiosity, how many photos did you used here? -- RTA 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • They're simply distorted by the rectilinear projection, this is normal and happens in any ultrawide angle scene. I could use a different projection but then straight lines would become bent and most people prefer to accept some distortion in exchange for straight lines. I believe I used 75 images to create this. Diliff (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That's what I thought Diliff, so you do not use, like, a 24mm and create a panoramic photo? Another thing, In metadata appears that you used a 10 mm, but I don't know any EF 10 mm that are not fisheye, and in your list of equipment does not appear 10 mm :P, so what lens do you used, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8? Thanks for your time, and contributions.-- RTA 05:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • It's a panoramic stiched image. I use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens (at f/11 or f/13 usually), but PTGui puts the effective focal length in the EXIF data, which in this case is 10mm. It's not completely accurate though, because I often crop the image a bit afterwards, so maybe it's more like 11 or 12mm. Diliff (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why not upload all your RAWs to commonsarchive, you dont know if in the future a better software could make a better build with more information, i dont know. --The_Photographer (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • All my RAW files?? I took 1 terabyte of RAW images in 2014 alone.... I don't think it's very practical. ;-) If better software in the future can make better images, I'll do it myself. I don't plan to release all my RAW files under a free license. Diliff (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Look like you dont have space problems like me. Do you know some private alternative? --The_Photographer (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ///EuroCarGT 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Thu 26 Feb → Tue 03 Mar
Fri 27 Feb → Wed 04 Mar
Sat 28 Feb → Thu 05 Mar
Sun 01 Mar → Fri 06 Mar
Mon 02 Mar → Sat 07 Mar
Tue 03 Mar → Sun 08 Mar

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

Sun 22 Feb → Tue 03 Mar
Mon 23 Feb → Wed 04 Mar
Tue 24 Feb → Thu 05 Mar
Wed 25 Feb → Fri 06 Mar
Thu 26 Feb → Sat 07 Mar
Fri 27 Feb → Sun 08 Mar
Sat 28 Feb → Mon 09 Mar
Sun 01 Mar → Tue 10 Mar
Mon 02 Mar → Wed 11 Mar
Tue 03 Mar → Thu 12 Mar

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

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

  1. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not), 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/March 2015), 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/March 2015.
  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.