Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and current month.

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

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

VotingEdit

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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 18:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lago Kluane, Destruction Bay, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-25, DD 70-76 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 15:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hemerocallis fulva 2018 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 15:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:CatedraldeBariloche.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 13:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Bad light, perspective distortion. Yann (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Common cottongrass in a cliff crevice.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 09:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Swing into books, Book week, November 1-7, 1964.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 03:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View of Helldalsisen and the peak from Blåfjell.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 20:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • As I see this landscape, nearly everything is in the darkness. The luminous small rock in the foreground is nice, but isolated. Not sure you can manage to light this valley artificially -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, much of it is kind of dark, but it is also a special glow to the landscape because of the very low sun. --Frankemann (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice light and very instructive. --Milseburg (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Per Milseburg --Code (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Ryxö island nature reserve in Brofjorden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 17:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info In the 60s, this area was the focus of one of the hottest debates in Sweden, as plans were made to build Scandinavia's biggest oil refinery and oil port so close to a nature reserve. This gave the newly awakened environmental movement a push and the refinery was made to be "the world's safest and most beautiful", with most of the operation underground, blasted into the granite cliffs. The reserve is so far untouched and has a variety of local wildlife plus a heard of cows. In this photo I managed to catch four roe deer down by the shore. The photo is taken from a ledge overlooking the flatlands of the old Rixö granite quarry (shown here). There used to be a hill there, as big and high as the one I'm standing on, but it got chopped up and shipped off to Germany to be used in the construction of Autobahn. No such quantities of durable granite could be obtained in Germany and everything was shipped from the quay down left in the photo. The water snaking off towards the horizon is the inlet of Brofjorden, today trafficked by tankers. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Cart (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Cernina fluctuata 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 10:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:People for Animals rescusing stranded mules during the Uttarakhand Floods 2013.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 06:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Comment - I don't see how we could know that other members of the Animal Kingdom are incapable of feeling hope. Otherwise, I agree, but it's best for you also not to editorialize about things we can't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's anthropomorphising, if we want to be technical about it ;-). I see also the editorialising is in the FPC note too. That's too much. Please keep this sort of thing off of Commons. We're just an image repository. -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I'm saying, it's also best for you not to make that kind of declarative statement of your opinion on this if you don't want a discussion. Note that I've avoided stating my opinion except to say that I don't see how we could know that all animal species other than Homo sapiens couldn't possibly feel hope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Hermagor Görtschach Filialkirche hl. Heinrich NW-Ansicht 18062018 3636.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 06:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Weak oppose Seems overly processed to me. There is a mildly disturbing halo around the steeple in the sky, but there also seems something wrong with the overall contrast. The face of the tower also seems quite disturbing to me. Storkk (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Done @Storkk: Thanks for your valuable review. According to your hints some modifications were made. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It looks significantly better to me now, enough to strike the oppose. Something is still bugging me about the shadows, but not enough to oppose. Storkk (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Not the light one would want, but a very good job with it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Techelsberg Pfarrkirche Sankt Martin Kaplanei 31012015 752.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 06:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Residence on No. 45, Route Pichon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 05:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Oppose The size is better but sorry the verticals have not been fixed. The top of the building is thinner than the base. You need to use a software like Lightroom or Photoshop to change the appearance and make it closer to the reality. But my oppose is because after correction, there will be too little space on the right of the building, with the roof cut. So unless this image is a crop from a larger file you can compose differently with more space on the right, I'm afraid the whole will look tight within the space -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment There is also some confusion in the beginning of the file's history. The original file was uploaded by Antigng and Fayhoo overwrote it with a completely different photo of the house. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@W.carter: That's why I created File:Residence on No. 45, Route Pichon (old).jpg, since Antigng's version is of low quality in my opinion. --WQL (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that seems like a roundabout and unusual way of doing it when the overwrite could have been moved to a new file instead. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Too much distortion.--Peulle (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose As per Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Basil and Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Perspective distortion. Yann (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Fondamenta Zacchere Rio delle Muneghe Venezia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 19:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Heliopsis helianthoides flower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 10:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Support Sed imago mihi valde placet. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Confirmo Non est satis fugatur et esse in centro, non est a forsit. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Confirmo - Sed etiam imago mihi valde placet-- P999 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Colorful floating bungalows in Don Khon, Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Colorful shophouses in Koon Seng Road, Singapore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Loxura atymnus-Kadavoor-2018-06-18-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   InfoLoxura atymnus, Yamfly, is a species of Lycaenidae found in Asia. There are several types of nectaries in the orchids, including extrafloral types that secrete nectar on the outside of the buds or inflorescence while the flower is developing. In contrast to floral nectaries, nectar produced outside the flower generally have a defensive function. The nectar attracts predatory insects which will eat both the nectar and any plant-eating insects around, thus functioning as 'bodyguards'. Foraging predatory insects show a preference for plants with extrafloral nectaries, particularly some species of ants and wasps, which have been observed to directly defend the plants. Loxura atymnus is famous for consuming nectar secreted from the extrafloral nectaries stimulated by the ants. Here they are on a Philippine orchid bud along with some Yellow crazy ants. C/U/N by Jkadavoor -- Jee 09:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Jee 09:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cart (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support But please remove the dust spot (see note). --A.Savin 12:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I requested one of my friends here to help as no processing tool available in the old computer now I'm using. Jee 13:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What happend to your computer? --Cart (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jee: OK, I saw it now already -- I think it would be then unfair to demand you to fix it -- no problem, I'll fix it for you (it's quite easy), but as we have the occasion, maybe you send me your raw file -- I would also try to fix the noise better. If interested, mail me? --A.Savin 20:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A.Savin and Jee I've uploaded a version of the JPG without the dust spot. Then afterwards a version processed from RAW that tries to be as similar to the original as I can get it, and it has less JPG noise/artefacts. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's definitely better. --A.Savin 22:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colin and Alex. Jee 01:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Acosmeryx shervillii mounted specimenEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:10:44 (UTC)

File:A pier at a campsite during sunset, Sidney Spit (part of Gulf Islands National Park Reserve), Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 20.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 03:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you, Ikan Kekek, I might give the picture you mentioned a go after this nomination is finished. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:I think its gonna rain today.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2018 at 12:50:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the file's name, please read Commons:File naming and consider renaming the file. Since people need to be able to search this huge archive to find the right photo, names must be accurate and not poetic or misleading. Flickr names are seldom ok in that respect. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose even if properly named; it's unsharp and very noisy, as well as nearly blown at the right. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Good idea but technically badly implemented.--Ermell (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportSputnik (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --WQL (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - I'm not amazed by the composition. I'd like the photo better if only the right side with the higher cloud were in the picture. To my eyes, the left side kind of sits there - not that there wasn't activity in real life, but just as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Not very sharp and colour noise in the sky --Llez (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Dutch bicycle.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2018 at 10:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles
  •   Info Dutch bicycle a.k.a Roadster bicycle. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Mile (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment It's a great capture of the bike, but couldn't you find a less busy background to photograph it against? The person in the yellow neon jacket is rather disturbing. --Cart (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose An excellent sharp photo of a normal Dutch bicycle, but the people behind the bicycle are spoiling the composition.
  •    Oppose per Michielverbeek. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - Regrettably, background is too distracting. -- P999 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Front view of Milan Stazione Centrale entrance portico.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 22:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

   DoneDaniel Case (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Big improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like that there are everyday people milling about, coming or going somewhere. Not a sterile monument or some place with gawking tourists. --Cart (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Sorry, I don't find it particularly interesting. Harsh midday light; the structures in the front spoil the view (yes, it's not up to the photographer). And the quality could have been better -- a bit too soft at the sides --A.Savin 17:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Exactly as I remember it. -- P999 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per A.Savin. -- King of ♠ 04:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nice station but the confusion of the people as well as the decreasing sharpness to the sides reduce the good impression. I can't detect a wow effect either.--Ermell (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
If it matters to anyone who doesn't have issues with the composition, I have sharpened up the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Río Copper, Glennallen, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 114.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 20:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the Copper River, Glennallen, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 20:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Poco2 20:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like the vehicles on the one bar that show up only at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - The guy on the hill with the binoculars looking at the vast vista really makes the picture special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Ikan! Is it just me or shouldn't the image be slightly rotated ccw? Probably just me... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I also think it should be rotated... Yann (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cart (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    OpposeThe image is tilted. Apart from that technical problem, I don't find the landscape really awesome. The person could bring something special, but unfortunately his back and action are not very interesting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I applied a tilt --Poco2 18:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support with tilt correction. --Yann (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportJee 01:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- King of ♠ 04:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Cezembre 2 cropped.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 16:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Oppose(Edit conflict) File:Cezembre_Bombing_2.jpg already is a comparably low quality digital reproduction. (Handwriting/Typewriter is unsharp, so the rest is also not as sharp as it could be. At least in the areas depicting the main photograph, it also has some weird JPG artifacts that clearly show the borders between the 8x8 pixel blocks used by the jpg algorithm (best seen at 300% zoom, but it affects picture quality at normal magnifications as well).) Something went wrong there. The version presented here, on top of all that also has a considerably reduced color palette: the "original" had 252 shades of grey (normal for 8-bit grayscale), this one has a mere 39 unique values. This results in what I'm tempted to call strong pixel-level posterization. Something went very wrong there.
TL;DR: This is a very bad digital reproduction and even if it was improved by re-cropping the source file it would still be a pretty bad digital reproduction. --El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yann's edit fixed the "posterization" issue, but the rest of my comment remains untouched by that … --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Certainly a valuable image, but not excellent on the technical and aesthetic aspects -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Thanks everyone for the input, and thanks to Yann for improving all the images I uploaded of the bombing of Cezembre. I understand this falls short of the requirements here, and I will therefore submit this picture to the Valued Images. Skimel (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:American white pelican 3 cropped.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 11:20:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:München BW 2017-03-16 19-55-33.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 07:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Don't think this one compares well to our existing German Architecture FPs. The light for much of the building is not great and rather flat. The bright light star is distracting. The left side is quite blurred. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Colin. To add to his critique, the additional architecture on either side, and the posts in front, are distracting. There also seems to be a slight tilt. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others. A good photo and worth nominating, but not IMO outstanding enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ich weiß, wie schwierig es einem der Platz macht, ein halbwegs perfektes Bild zu bekommen... :-/ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Desfile de los Locos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 17:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment That is pretty creepy. I don't like the angry man flipping the birds in an otherwise innocent walk, but that adds an emotional response and I guess emotion is what we are after here. Can you improve the categorization a bit? It's not precise nor accurate. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)    Support --Trougnouf (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I will support once you fix the categories. Having this in the categories of "Parade" and "Parades" doesn't make sense, and why are those two different categories, anyway? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Having fixed the cats, I'll say that there is good chaos in this photo ... it brings out the craziness of the event. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportKruusamägi (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Added to two wiki pages too. Jee 01:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    OpposeSputnik (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Multa perturbatio in hac pictura.
  • Could you please use a living language? This is a little irritating. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pro me Britannica lingua irritabilis est. (For me English is irritating.)
  • Kamu boleh guna Bahasa Melayu. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --WQL (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Parque nacional y reserva Denali, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-30, DD 13-19 PAN.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 12:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Trougnouf I doubt that FPCBot will understand that template ... Poco2 06:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Would it not be ignored like any irrelevant template? In any case I    Support this image. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cart (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportKruusamägi (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I reckon that's how it looks like there most of the time. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I may have missed it, but I don't see how many photos you stacked. Could you add that information to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan, you can always realize it out of the file name (images 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, so 7 in total). I added this info in the file description Poco2 06:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • We FP photographers can usually figure out the "codes" used in file names, but please think about always making the info understandable in some way for other users. --Cart (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Cart: my comment was not an "excuse" not to do that, no problem with that, I added the information and will do it in the future (if not, then just due to my advanced age) Poco2 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Poco My comment was not in any way meant as critique, just a friendly reminder also directed at other photographers who might read this. Your noms are well visited and this thread seemed like a good place for such a comment. I apologize if it sounded like something else. --Cart (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, all good, thanks, Poco2 11:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Schwarzseen Villanders Südtirol.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 05:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Really beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Colin (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportStorkk (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportBijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 10:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I want to be there! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment It's nice and all (hey, Swedish camera!) but this has the same strange colors as the previous one. The tone is just slightly off, even if I'm probably not the right person to complain about a little 'Purple haze'. ;) I did some color correction tests with these pics that came out a bit more natural. --Cart (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    •    Comment @W.carter: If you like I can upload a RAW file for you for some tests. I'm very happy with my 'Swedish rhapsody'. Thanks for your comment --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but that's not necessary, it such a little nudge that is needed. I only used the 'Hue and saturation' in Photoshop (ctrl+U) and toggled the 'Hue' ("rainbow slider") to -6 and got this result. It's just a suggestion, it might not be to everyone's taste. --Cart (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportPoco2 19:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like it, although Cart is right that the tone could be improved. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Peulle (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Uoaei1 -- P999 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportJee 01:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportSputnik (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural#Italy

File:Hieno näkymä merelle Seurasaaresta.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 15:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Forgotten: IMO PNG is not a good choice for photographs. --XRay talk 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Sunset at Ganga Sagar, Janakpurdham 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 13:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
  •   Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Very atmospheric and nicely composed, so I'll support, but I think the reason people have so far not supported is that sunsets are specifically described as usually beautiful yet common, so people may be feeling that this photo may not be a special enough sunset to support but haven't been inclined to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Conditional support Per Ikan, I see it as more of a mood than an attempt to represent what I consider to be dusk here (as we can't see the sun since it appears to have gone down). Some very minimal perspective correction is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportSputnik (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nice sunset but these black silhouettes are not very interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Pitkä alikulku espoossa.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 09:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created by JKorpimies - uploaded by JKorpimies - nominated by JKorpimies -- JKorpimies (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- JKorpimies (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Regretful oppose It's a great idea and good composition, the kind of image you'd expect to see on a square meter of canvas at photo exhibitions, but unfortunately the focus has ended up on the tiles instead of the bike. That makes it a no-go for me, sorry. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose as per cart Bijay Chaurasia (Talk)
  •    Support - I find this a good composition and I don't find that having the bike be a little out of focus in the background makes it unworthy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Ikan. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Experimental shot looking weird -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 07:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Despite the tents the atmosphere is very special and brings this picture out of the ordinary. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Some might complain about the tents but I like the old vs. new contrast and the very lovely tones. Quality is flawless as always. --Code (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Code -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support The tents actually add to the image since they look exactly like the old military campaign tents of the original ship's era. They put the ship in context. In this dim light you can imagine what it looked like when the ship was made ready to sail for the American Revolution. --Cart (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support despite the tents. Storkk (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Sorry, but the angle doesn't work for me; it makes the image show too much of the harbour and not enough of the ship.--Peulle (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportKruusamägi (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I'm still evaluating this photo, but please fix a dust spot that's some ways to the left of the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Done I cloned out not one but two dust-spots, let me know if yours is still here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, you took care of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • On the photo: I love the ship and the harbor, but the bottom crop isn't working that smoothly for me and the right crop, with the one unsharp object in the lower right corner, is bugging me. I don't know what a photo that included more that is now below and to the right of the crops would have looked like, but I think I'd like this photo better if you did a horizontal crop right in front of the unsharp post, thereby also getting rid of a lot of the tents. The tents don't disturb me per se, but they kind of clog up a section of the photo. I think my proposed crop would create a more unified composition, but of course others might disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral Light is just great, but considering the Hermione the main subject I think that the angle is not the best as a good portion of the subject is hidden behind the tents Poco2 19:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The main subject is the whole scene, of course it is not the ship alone! I don't understand how can someone can think otherwise...! poor review, really. I will not be surprised if someone says the third window of the second boat is not under the right angle this is very disturbing!, and there is a big very very disturbing thing out of focus at bottom right, oh and so many boring tents!! where are the specialist of the oppose votes, there are many reasons here. Come one!! it is easy! Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I was going to oppose based on the tents until I read Cart's !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I'm surprised that nobody talked about the title "File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018.jpg" as we see only the back of the ship and it is only about 10% of the image. Nobody? and nobody oppose for the way the first tent is cut at bottom? and the "forbidden sign" at bottom? not disturbing? the second crane is misplaced too? no? isn't it? Sometimes FPC is not the research of the finest picture, but the competition of the poorest review. That is a snap shot, but a lucky one, that's all. Better for me to stop talking, please continue. Christian Ferrer (talk)
  • You have only yourself to blame for taking such nice photos with wow ambience that we just fall in love with them and forgive and forget all the little details.   --Cart (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Tourist snapshot & POTY. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- King of ♠ 02:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak    Oppose , at least for the right crop, because that unsharp post is not needed in the picture and distracts me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportJee 02:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Lopesan Baobab, Maspalomas, May 2018 -3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 18:41:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • No time for sitting idly by the pool if you hope to be first in line for dinner! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose This picture I can only review in comparison with the already promoted one, which I clearly prefer -- perhaps the dark building parts at both sides do the blue hour photo no favor, and I also prefer for this motif the more wide crop instead of a square photo. --A.Savin 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why not? IMO it's better indeed and has more of the symmetry, though because of the dark parts I still wouldn't vote in support. --A.Savin 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - I'm inordinately bugged by the asymmetry of the near right and left corners. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The sky and the pool are nice, but the building and tree lights are too dark and too bright. Not saying it could have been taken/processed any better but the result isn't quite there compared to our best night FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative - uncroppedEdit

 

  •   Info As suggested by A.Savin, also pinging Basotxerri, Frhdkazan, Cart, George Chernilevsky. While I do prefer the cropped square, I could understand arguments in favor of the uncropped wide-angle version --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral as stated above. --A.Savin 17:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral All that gradient light is competing with the patterns in this one and makes it restless. --Cart (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - This is IMO a better composition, and quite a nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per other crop -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I still prefer this one because it contains the competition between gradients and patterns noted by Cart in her oppose !vote to that one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak    Support . A bit unsharp and overexposed in the middle, but very nice nonetheless. -- King of ♠ 02:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like this version better, it kind of adds more symetry into the image. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Llez (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportJee 02:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support more completed from my perspective --WQL (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Red Clover 2011 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 16:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - You really capture the beauty of this common flower. Any other remark from me would feel like unnecessary quibbling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose good shot, but nothing all too special imho. It's a very commons plant, and the shot lacks in the wow-department for me, especially when compared to the already featured File:Trifolium_pratense_-_Keila2.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I think lighting could be significantly better. Actually, given the positions of the leaves, I think taking a half a step around the flower to your right would have stood a good chance of producing a more pleasing photo. Also per El Grafo. Storkk (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support If you have to upload something this small, this is the way to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Llez (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportJee 02:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Soyuz rocket and spaceship V1-1.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 13:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Could you please add documentation sources? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose still no information about the sources. Yann (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Stercoraire iceland.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 22:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
  •   Info created by Aymen861 - uploaded by Aymen861 - nominated by Aymen861 -- Aymen861 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Aymen861 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Beautiful view but the front-right blurry rock kills it for me. The very bright one on the bottom-left isn't great either, and I would like to see some of the mountain range with a little bit more focus though that's technically nearly impossible. There is some red CA on the grass and the categorization is very imprecise. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Great EV, if only you could put some more information and categories. Yann (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I added Category:Stercorarius skua. I would support with geolocation, or at least the name of the mountain in the background. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Frhdkazan (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I don't think the out of focus rocks or mountain is a problem... but the CA is disturbing. Would support if that was fixed. Storkk (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice! Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - It's a really interesting composition and great luck to find the eggs! But oppose per others, primarily for the unsharp foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Ikan and Tougnouf. Great juxtaposition marred by technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Water, Sand and Ice.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 19:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info Natural phenomenon occurring in Iceland. Icebergs from the nearest mountain get detached and melt on the pitch-black, basalt lava sand. All by me -- Bharel (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Bharel (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I like the idea. Reminds me (remotely) of this photo. However, the flare of the sun spoils the nomination for me. Not good enough to support, not bad enough to oppose. --Code (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks Code for your review   The flare was actually an artistic choice. I have a few other shots on different angles without the flare, but I chose this on purpose. (Much like another close image I've uploaded with an international glare File: Diamonds of nature.jpg) Bharel (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding that file's name, please read Commons:File naming. Since people need to be able to search this huge archive to find the right photo, names must be accurate and not poetic or misleading. Only those looking for "natural diamonds" will find that file now, and they will be disappointed. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
       Done , thanks cart   Bharel (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Looks like another one that could be an album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks mate :-) Bharel (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Beautiful and striking, and this particular flare doesn't bother me, or not much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The colors seem saturated. Natural object that doesn't look natural. I suspect a strong post-processing. And also find the composition has a problem of cropping on top -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review Basile  . There's not much post processing actually (tiny bit of mainly exposure correction on the water). The black sand creates a strong saturation difference. I am, however, able to desaturate it straight on the original raw file if you believe it'll be better. Bharel (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps just this exposure correction is enough to make the picture looking artificial. You can try to improve it, yes, though the glare on top with the wave cut too short are also bothering in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Fundación César Manrique - post.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 14:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panorama vom Wachtküppel.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 13:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Instructive panoramic view (360°) from the Wachtküppel in the Rhön Mountains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportStorkk (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Llez (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support~Moheen (keep talking) 21:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Ermell (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Procedural opposeThis image has been nominated for deletion as copyvio; we should wait until it's resolved before considering it as an FP.   Support Never mind; it turns out it was by one of INeverCry's socks and the account has been blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Lots to see, and very pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Sympecma paedisca 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 12:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Very nice as well as a very good execution. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tozina (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportPoco2 19:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - I may be spoiled by the dragonfly pictures that have been nominated here by Charles, et al., but compare the resolution and contrast in the other current FP in Category:Sympecmatinae: File:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg. It's too small for FPC, nowadays. It was taken in 2006. And yet, it's a flat-out better photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support File resolution enough for me for such a small damselfly in natural. More resolution means, you need to approach it and cut the aperture and go for artificial lights (like me) or lift the ISO (as Charles). All have their own pros and cons. Jee 02:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Large Gautama Buddha statue in Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 17:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

--Trougnouf (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  •    Comment The brightness of the statue has been increased by adding some localized adjustments. But as per histogram there are no over blown highlights. It is slightly on the bright side but with details intact. The slight bluish in forest I guess was a result of decreasing the global contrast in the image. - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose as previous comments Charles (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose An impressive photo, but unfortunately you have emphasized the blue colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment The blue colour has been dialed down a bit globally in the photo. Pl check - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support After improvement --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support good enough now, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Looks good, but there's a strange loss of fine detail (visible in the grass and bushes at the bottom). Too much noise reduction? dllu (t,c) 06:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - This is a really imposing image. I'll await your work to address dllu's points before I vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I re-processed the image from scratch this time with selective noise reduction and aimed at maintaining the overall incremental improvement on this image that I have been doing basis feedback from various reviewers over the last few weeks. I think I have been able to address the issue highlighted by dllu in the latest version. The updated image has already been uploaded. - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support chest detail is visible to the naked eye, less blue and less exaggerated colors, I approve. --Trougnouf (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Interesting subject, quite good for me. Yann (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Question statue appears to be leaning roughly 0.5° (counterclockwise from viewer's position)... does that reflect reality? Storkk (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - The observation on tilt is correct (It was off by 0.53 deg). I have fixed it now and uploaded the updated photo. Thanks - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support seems fine now. dllu (t,c) 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportPoco2 19:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- WQL (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa 'Kent' (d.j.b) 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Rosa #Family Rosaceae
  •   InfoRosa 'Kent' has half-filled white flowers with yellow stamens on a bushy shrub that cools well. This very strong and healthy rose has green fine leaves. All by ] -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice shot --Patriccck (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose nice shot, but nothing extraordinary, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per El Grafo; it's nice but I can't say I'm really blown away. The white petal obscuring part of the yellow is a bit of a nuisance.--Peulle (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info That curled petal is typical of half-filled roses.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants#Family Rosaceae

File:De Molen (windmill) and the nuclear power plant cooling tower in Doel, Belgium (DSCF3859).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Comment What is technically missing? I think the camera settings were ideal, ISO200 is the lowest my camera goes, F/9 is optimal on this zoom level with my lens, I don't think the focus is a miss, and I even had the camera on a tripod to do exposure bracketing in case that was necessary, it doesn't look flawed to me at a reasonable zoom level. If there's anything I missed in software I would be happy to improve it. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I find this photo compelling: The unbalanced nature of the photo that Basotxerri is complaining about is part of what I see as the dystopic new technology dominating over the windmill and the benches, grass and so on that are attempting to pretend everything is alright. I get the feeling in viewing this photo that everything other than the ugly, polluting new technology will be annihilated before long. And it looks fine to me, technically, though I could be missing something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment The technical quality is fine. It's an APS-C camera using the right settings in the daytime. The juxtaposition of the two power plants is quite interesting. I would support, but the composition is a bit left-heavy. The left of the image is a lot busier than the right. Meanwhile, I don't know what Ikan is talking about regarding "ugly, polluting new technology". The nuclear cooling tower only outputs pure water vapour, and is shaped in a beautiful hyperboloid. dllu (t,c) 06:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert, but that was my emotional reaction. And I don't think we want to debate here whether nuclear power plants are completely clean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral It's really close for me, but I think on reflection it's not quite enough to gain my support. I really like the idea, but the light is a bit of an issue for me. I also find the car a bit disturbing; the left side of the image is supposed to represent the old technology, so its presence in front of the windmill is putting me off. I'd suggest reshooting on a day with better light, at least getting the light from the back so the left side is illuminated better.--Peulle (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Ikan --Milseburg (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I uploaded a new version where the exposure has been increased on the left side especially. Let me know if there's any other adjustment to be made, I have a lot of room on the histogram. I think the light looked beautiful at that time of the day. The car is unfortunate and I won't be going back as Doel is a ghost town that's over an hour bike ride from the nearest train station, maybe some other Belgian commonner will be luckier. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Interesting juxtaposition, but overly busy composition for FP to me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Frhdkazan (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tozina (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak    Support . Would have preferred the smoke to go in the opposite direction, but this composition works nonetheless. -- King of ♠ 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Industry#Belgium


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Mon 18 Jun → Sat 23 Jun
Tue 19 Jun → Sun 24 Jun
Wed 20 Jun → Mon 25 Jun
Thu 21 Jun → Tue 26 Jun
Fri 22 Jun → Wed 27 Jun
Sat 23 Jun → Thu 28 Jun

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

Thu 14 Jun → Sat 23 Jun
Fri 15 Jun → Sun 24 Jun
Sat 16 Jun → Mon 25 Jun
Sun 17 Jun → Tue 26 Jun
Mon 18 Jun → Wed 27 Jun
Tue 19 Jun → Thu 28 Jun
Wed 20 Jun → Fri 29 Jun
Thu 21 Jun → Sat 30 Jun
Fri 22 Jun → Sun 01 Jul
Sat 23 Jun → Mon 02 Jul

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

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

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a human user to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2018), 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/June 2018.
  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.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Archiving a withdrawn nominationEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the purpose that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.