Open main menu

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 documentsEdit

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."

PhotographsEdit

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 audioEdit

Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominationsEdit

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 the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image.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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes (or 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes for a delist) 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.

Contents

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:British Columbia Parliament Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 22:55:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 22:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iglesia de Cristo, Winhoek, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 158-170 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of a landscape at the banks of the Tanana River near Tok, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Highlights too bright on the clouds and a yellowish cast that gets more noticeable at the edges, where it's also very unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bergweg tussen Andiast, Ladinas en Breil-Brigels (actm) 16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Staraya Russa asv2018-07 various45 Railway station.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 07:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hippasa holmerae (Lawn wolf spider) in its funnel web.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 01:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done below. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  Info Rotated and cropped version from the previous comments, Yann, Ikan, Isiwal, Charles, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Technical quality not great, but I like the composition. It's not easy to find the spiders in this position. Charles (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support even better! I would not have rotated it, but that's a minor concern. Spiders walk upside-down all the time. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • with this sort of shot there's no 'correct' orientation because you're usually scrambling to get the shot and not thinking about keeping the camera horizontal. --Charles (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I wish you could get in even tighter, but I think this is as far as you can go in that direction without making technical compromises. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ardea herodias standing on a rock at St. Pete Beach.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 21:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
  •   Info created by Grendelkhan - uploaded by Grendelkhan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing to say against showing an animal in its natural environment, but in this case the subject is not well separated from the background without any need for it (IMHO), making it harder to see the quite interesting silouette of the bird. The worst part are feathers on the bottom of its beak that are of very similar tone as the water reflections behind it. E.g. a lower angle would have cleared the background up a lot and provided more presence. – LucasT 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite good IMHO. Yann (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann. The fact that the background is somewhat blurred gives sufficient separation, and the bird is quite well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cannot compete with the many Ardea FPs. Charles (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:MuseoJuanManuelBlanes-Montevideo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 21:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring lighting on an overcast day, unbalanced composition with distracting tree base and random people, one of them even seemingly reacting to being photographed. – LucasT 21:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad light and per Lucas -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas and Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. -- Ikan Kekek ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|
  •   Oppose per Lucas. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination thanks!!!! Ezarateesteban 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Alpine chough on Veliki Vrh, Karawanks, Slovenia 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 20:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Lucas You reckon that the previous amount of sharpening was better? I tend to sharpen less as I'm trying to avoid these bright lines around subjects from oversharpening. But you're probably right that this time it wasn't that bad - I uploaded a new version with more sharpening. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Podzemnik thanks, it's much better now and I don't see any artifacts. Bright lines can be mitigated by adjusting the settings, there are many guides on the internet about unsharpen mask and other techniques and how to handle them, in various programs. – Lucas 16:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lucas Silly me, it's as simple as masking! Thanks for the advice, --Podzemnik (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for the lighting, leaving most of the bird in shadow. --Charles (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charlesjsharp --Fischer.H (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viaduct with Langwies from Rongg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lovely scene, but the big shadow in the corner distracts from it too much. Also the shadow together with a more near tree top (not well identifiable without zooming in, too) cover up half of the village. Overall, the image doesn't tell a clear story to me as it contains too many competing elements of similar size in the frame. The composition could be improved as well. – LucasT 19:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - The sweeping shape works well enough to me as a composition, and the shadow is minor to me, in the scheme of things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Works better, and thus the shadow is less distracting, if you see it as a winter landscape rather than a picture of the bridge (Nice that you waited for the train to be going over it). Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel nailed it --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo (December 2018).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Finland
  •   Info Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo. A photograph by me. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nitpicky, I know, but the lowest row of tiles show that the camera was either not aligned with the tiles well enough or it was tilted marginally. If this is fixed I'd be happy to reconsider. – LucasT 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not convince me, and it looks somewhat distorted (see previous comment) --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Uoaei1 Seven Pandas (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Seven Pandas, Uoaei1, Lucasbosch: Did a small perspective correction, what do you think, is it better? --Msaynevirta (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment I strike my oppose. – LucasT 17:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Pretty restful composition to me, and I don't mainly mean because it's late at night and there are no people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition is fine with me, but the contrast is just too high. As a result the eyes are drawn only to the logo at the top and the horizontal line in the middle, detracting attention from the more interesting interior. I think it would work better if taken earlier in the night. -- King of ♠ 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark, nothing special in my view, and the upper left corner with banners in the shadow is particularly ugly -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Geneva from Chillon Castle.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 10:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017.06.05.-22-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Plattbauch-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 09:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info This is the same dragonfly as in this picture but has a complete another view and composition. I was really not sure if I should nominate it due to you possibly dislike the wing in the foreground. On the other hand ... see for yourself. ;-) Thanks in advance. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree with you about all but one of the wings, but this is otherwise a pretty interesting view and quite an impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Super detail, but colours seem a little over-saturated. --Charles (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Wago 221-413 splicing connector with stranded wire.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 19:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by me – LucasT 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very good quality of photo, but no wow factor to me. -- -donald- (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Different, and because I like the abstract forms I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Exciting at 100 %. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support KTC (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Superb technical quality, but looks a bit like an advertising shot. Charles (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Charles if the photo feeling like an advertising shot is a detriment for you, please explain why. – Lucas 18:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Because the composition (not the blackground) is similar to those used by the company in its advertising for this product range. Charles (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You are right, but rest assured I arrived at this composition from my own thoughts and was led by the text orientation on the connector. The manufacturer mainly uses computer generated images though. – Lucas 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Wond van een afgebroken tak. Europese larix (Larix decidua) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 16:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Wounded tree (Larix decidua).
  •   Info This is a picture of a large open bleeding wound of a European larch. The tree produces resin to protect the open wound from external influences. Stelvio National Park (Italy). Wound from a broken branch. European larch (Larix decidua).
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost looks like a mouth ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose crop is too tight in my opinion and there's not too much of wow factor in the subject, as these kinds of wounds in trees aren't too unusual. Sorry. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I respect your opinion about this picture. But I would like to give a little explanation. The European larix (Larix decidua) occurs in Central Europe especially in the Alps. We are nature lovers and love the Alps. We have been going on holiday for years. Rarely have we seen a larix (Larix decidua) with such a large bleeding wound against the trunk as the larix in this photo. The branch has been broken down to the outside of the core in the tree trunk. An ordinary photo that you can shoot regularly is not my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment We have similar Pinaceae family trees here in Finland, and I've seen similar wounds in them. The subject may be interesting, but the problem is more in the current presentation (crop and composition). --Msaynevirta (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 11:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I really like how Johnston used sepia to bring out the lace. I have tweaked the levels a bit to try and bring out the detail, but the effect is 100% in the original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Everything is good: the pose, the costume, the original photograph, the copy, and the restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question You're sure the darks aren't too darkened? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I tried a few things, and this looked best to me. Anything much lighter looked faded out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done, please add info about the restoration procedure in the image description. --Photographer 01:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I did, though it was pretty standard. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Stanford Dish April 2011 003.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 05:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Crew Demo-1 Mission (39684490143).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 22:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by Elisfkc - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose heavily downsized from the 50 MP the 5DS is capable of. It looks quite soft and grainy as well. – LucasT 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Quality really could be better for 2019. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Peulle (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas, and could benefit from perspective correction as well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. -- Karelj (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Johannes Wilhjelm, Skagens gamle kirke. Nat, 1910. SKM1393, Skagens Kunstmuseer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 19:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) female Montagne d’Ambre (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 14:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • tweaked a bit. Charles (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Our finest reptile photography includes habitat. What is the point in photographing one in the mountains of Madagascar, when the result looks like a pet in somoene's bedroom? The hard direct flash does it no favours either, resulting in over exposure and loss of three-dimensionality. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Still bearing a grudge from the 'flash can kill a chameleon' discussion. Sad. And of course it's not direct flash. Try looking at the shadow from the tail wrapped around the branch. Of course it's an artifical setting, but that doesn't stop it aspiring to be included in our finest reptile photography. --Charles (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why should I bear a grudge? I seem to recall you got upset with The Photographer. Charles, this does you no favours. I commented on the photo, and I examined our collection of reptile FPs. I said the flash was direct, I didn't claim it was a ring flash. Any flash mounted a few inches from the centre of the camera produces that effect. Please Charles, go look at the link you added to our current FP reptiles. Ambient light, or merely using a little fill-flash would have included some habitat colours, but you went for tiny aperture, low ISO, fast shutter and a whopping big flash at a distance of 1.6m to compensate for your choice of settings. So the wood is blown and the background is lost. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall you being with me when I took the picture and your analysis of my camera settings shows a very limited understanding of night-time wildlife photography. I chose to have a blackground. Charles (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Charles, first you transfer your grudge on to me (who has nothing to have a grudge about), then insult me. Your camera settings may well be for a chosen black background, if you say so, but they also required an unnecessarily bright flash to compensate, hence the over-exposed branch. That's basic photography, nature, night-time, or otherwise. My opinion stands, and since you once again seem to be more interested in personal attacks, than photography, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I propose to lay down the weapons. There are more important things in life than a picture!--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Contrary to Colin, I find the back background very good: it helps making the animal standing apart. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would support this for the style which is similar to my still life photos, but the lack of sharpness and therefore definition of its features, especially on the head, and the out of focus areas, are too much. All this is visible even without zooming in to 100 %. – LucasT 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the overexposure on the branch as that is not the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ramparts of the historic fortified city of Carcassone 16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 00:29:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support very good. Reminds me of one of my own images. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some verticals of the higher towers seem to be a bit tilted to the left, espesially in the left half. --Milseburg (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this is quite some level below the standards for Castles/Fortifications on Commons. I'm guessing you are using Lightroom's photo merge, rather than a dedicated package such as Hugin or PtGui. For architecture, these are essential in order to supply vertical alignment guidelines and appropriate projection adjustment. The horizon is titled strongly at both sides, the towers are all quite wonky, including the middle corner. The far left is blurred. Overall, it looks quite strongly vertically compressed. The light and shadow combination is unfortunate too. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Yes, I use the Lightroom. Thanks for your review. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. It's quite dizzying to look at. – LucasT 18:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I've crossed out my vote and comment. I guess I was too absorbed with the details to notice the tilts mentioned above, but I see them now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea, but the closer you get to either edge, the worse the flaws get, as Colin documents. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:50pfg-koeln2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 21:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Baustelle Hölzla 6066312.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 20:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info Engineer with construction plan at the ABS Nürnberg–Ebensfeld. All by me. -- Ermell (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, convincing portrait, nice bokeh. --Aristeas (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - though I wonder what he's doing with the tape measure over the buildings plan. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- As to Poszemnik's question: when working on a construction project, it's a good idea to check your construction plans frequently. And this gentleman is not building a shed but a high-speed railway line. :) MartinD (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Овцебыки - самые грозные млекопитающие Таймыра.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 10:01:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info Muskox on Bolshoy Begichev Island in Laptev Sea. Natural monument Terpey-Tumus, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, Russia. -- ViseMoD (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I haven't found a picture of a Muskox in a wild with such high quality on wiki. -- ViseMoD (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question downsized? Charles (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No response. I assume it is downsized. Will cancel oppose if it isn't --Charles (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not the author, so can't be sure. But looks like it is downsized. --ViseMoD (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't that mean you should withdraw the nomination? "Images should not be downsampled" --Charles (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Let the people decide! ;-) --ViseMoD (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lot closer than I got to any muskoxen during my time in the Arctic ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support JukoFF (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would crop it above and on the left so that the face is centred in the middle. --Hockei (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles.--Peulle (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Edgar Degas - Waiting - Google Art Project.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 18:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Lincoln assassination slide c1900 - Restoration.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 16:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Остров Белл и Убежище Эйры.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 18:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alas, I am not the author of the photo: ( JukoFF (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Excellent picture, but why is it downsized? The camera of the drone provides a resolution of 5472x3648 px! --Isiwal (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice but tilted and downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks great at 3x my 13-inch screen size, which is bigger than the full size of this picture. Also looks pretty good at 200% of full size, especially considering that it's a drone pic. I'd love to see the picture in its original size, but it's an impressive, unusual view. I don't think we should demand that drone pictures have absolutely level horizons - do you demand that of shots from planes, too? Satellite pics? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That's certainly not a drone nor a robot that uploaded this file on Commons. So the author should do as everyone usually do when checking their pictures, just fix the tilt by a simple rotation of the image, quick and easy step in post-process, and aesthetic touch to avoid a sea rocking like a supernatural phenomenon. I can understand a selfie by a monkey being kept not leveled, but a drone ? Is that a creative tool ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Tozina (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I would like that the Features pictures have had more pictures of this kind! --ViseMoD (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong tilted, so definitely not a FP. The motif has potential but the technic isn´t. The sharpness is rather low considering the also low resolution. --Milseburg (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great (and rare) motif and very good in terms of composition. The sharpness is very good, too. I'd immediately change to support if someone would level the horizon. --Code (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tuxyso. This may be a new candidate for northernmost FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, quite impressive, especially now after the horizon has been levelled. --Aristeas (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.04.21.-03-Mannheim Vogelstang--Gamander-Ehrenpreis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 08:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks over saturated to me. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 5 few years ago I've photographed also a Gamander Ehrenpreis, see: File:Gamander-Ehrenpreis.jpg. I think the detail quality of the nomineee here is not sufficient for an FP (compare with my photo). In 100% view the photo here looks somehow overprocessed, especially at the edge of the flower. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I do not know the picture of Tuxyso and at the moment I only view this candidate. The blossom is very detailed and sharp. And I like this composition with a sharp main focus and blurred rest. --Tozina (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin; it seems too saturated for me. Sorry. Tournasol7 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Saturation doesn't bother me so much (unsurprising) but it is horribly overprocessed ... just look at the edges of the petals. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Daniel, I've reworked it. However, without changing the saturation. This saturation isn't more adjusted than in my other pictures too and I love it. Hope it's good now. --Hockei (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ingrown oval sculpture of human head in a tree trunk in Laos (1).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • "Amateurish" couldn't be more wrong. There's this face also very near in the same tree, which is not surrounded by roots, and that the monks everyday honor with encense and gifts just because it's part of their real worship. This (different) FP was controversial because it is unsharp and completely overprocessed. It would have had less oppose votes if the post-treatment had been better. There are religious items surrounded by tree roots in many places in Asia, in Ayutthaya Thailand of course, but also in Ankhor Vat Cambodia, and here in Laos in this isolated place where no tourist never go. Just search "temple of Don Som" on Google and you'll find no result because it is not an attraction (contrary to that famous one in Thailand). It is similar to other (better known) sculptures, yes, and so, what's the problem ? Are these fake roots ? For me it's an extraordinary creation showing the local spirit in link with nature. That also completely illustrates the art in Laos. It's just 100% authentic. Here photographically the fresh leaves gives something special, but even the painted sculpture itself I find this absolutely great, culturally amazing -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support according to Basile's statement --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We shouldn't be judging the work itself, just the image of it. I could see opposing it on the basis of this image being too similar in concept to the other one, but I wouldn't be the one doing it. As it is, this to me is different enough because it has a playfulness the other one lacks. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • We often judge subjects (castles => wow, ordinary houses => meh). We also judge the aspects that make a great photo (great light, great composition, great moment). This has none of those. It is very much a "point camera directly at subject in very ordinary light and press shutter button". It is a QI, but I see no FP here. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, this is not a "point camera directly at subject in very ordinary light and press shutter button". I've got this picture at several times of the day, including one at 6:35 am, which means I woke up before sunrise and took my boat in the darkness to reach this island, to make the best picture of this subject. That's my way of creating, yes. I love this shot in particular, its composition, the natural light, and think the "great moment" was to discover by chance this rare camouflaged object. Thanks, Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It doesn't look like much in a thumbnail but quite impressive in a full size. --Podzemnik (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 19:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Saslonch da Mont de Seuc.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 18:22:46 (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) 18:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will support this when the stitching errors are fixed.--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
      •   Comment The mistakes in the sky on the left side I meant or am I the only one who sees them?--Ermell (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
        •   Comment You are not alone. --Granada (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressive szene and size, but there are visible edges in the upper left area. So not perfect and not FP yet. The lower left corner is unsharp. --Milseburg (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done @Milseburg:, @Ermell:, @Isiwal:, thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      •   Comment Still work to do. With such an impressive landscape, nobody is looking up at the sky, but still the bug should be fixed. Please take a look at the note.--Ermell (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I am a bit worried how quickly some motifs are waved through here, without looking carefully. Moroder has many good motives and good equipment. Such issues should be resolved prior to nomination. My tip would be to reduce the nomination rate a bit and take a closer look when processing the photos. By the way it would be interesting to fill in the Template:Panorama complete. How many frames are this? Which stitcher is used? --Milseburg (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now till the editing errors are fixed - should not be too difficult. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending resolution of the edge on the cloud. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done I hope I've fixed definitely the last flows. I agree with Milseburg that "motifs are waved through here, without looking carefully" but it's a hard work with such big photos and I promise I'll be more accurate and hope not to rely on all the hints of the reviewers (which I appreciate a lot) in future. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      •   CommentAlso at the risk that I will be seen here as picky but there is still something to do, see note. In some parts of the sky you can also see traces of the brush. I would remove the light posterization with the soft focus.--Ermell (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK --Isiwal (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. now.--Ermell (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid the sky is still not OK. But the strong posterizations are easy to fix.
  •   Comment Sorry but for me there are to much processing traces visible as hems around the clouds in the upper left area to be a FP. FPs have to be perfect even when the resolution is high. --Milseburg (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose there is posterization all over the clouds. – LucasT 10:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful! --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Italy

File:Malojapass Böhringer 2018.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2019 at 14:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't decided how to vote, because being upset is an emotional reaction and arguably a reason to vote for, not against, but that said: This does not look like a natural place at 80 seconds, because the long exposure accentuates the lights on the cars on the road in a very disconcerting way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment fun picture :) You have my vote if you upload a full resolution picture, provide a descriptive English description, categorize it well, and remove the chromatic aberrations. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose in the meantime, also the white balance / saturation should be toned down a bit per Basile (but maybe not as far as the version he posted) --Trougnouf (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment very blue and downsized. Charles (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above. --Charles (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Would be great to remove chromatic aberrations on the left --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Trougnouf. I really like this idea, but the execution could have been done better. I would suggest using layers.--Peulle (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. The temperature is too cold, the snow abnormally blue, and the colors seem oversaturated. If you increase the temperature on Lightroom the aspect of the image becomes immediately more realistic -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Certainly the suggestions here would help, but I'm fine with this as is. Daniel Case (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning. -- B2Belgium (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile. I find the comparison of his edit vs. this photo very convincing, even if it would make sense to keep a bit of blue cast and not go all the way in that direction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture. White balance seems accurate to me, at least it works very well aesthetically. Resolution could be higher but we've seen smaller pictures pass here. Regarding the CA I think they are small and we have strong mitigating reasons here. --Code (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Sahand Ace 20:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral until CA is fixed - at 6 MP several pixels wide is very significant. -- King of ♠ 01:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others and also see my comment on the earlier nomination which is also getting critiqued for strong blue colors. – LucasT 22:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support thank you Tomer T --Böhringer (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Great picture! Well done
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice picture. --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The slopes of the mountains in the background show clear traces of processing in the form of diffuse double structures. It seems layers aren't congruent. All trees on the left are leaning out. I can not understand the abundance of encouragement. The picture has obvious flaws and can´t be a FP --Milseburg (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Trougnouf, King of Hearts, Milseburg. A great picture, no offence! but I don’t understand why don’t you fix the CAs. Especially at the trees at the top left, they are very pronounced. --Aristeas (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Mon 14 Jan → Sat 19 Jan
Tue 15 Jan → Sun 20 Jan
Wed 16 Jan → Mon 21 Jan
Thu 17 Jan → Tue 22 Jan
Fri 18 Jan → Wed 23 Jan
Sat 19 Jan → Thu 24 Jan

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

Thu 10 Jan → Sat 19 Jan
Fri 11 Jan → Sun 20 Jan
Sat 12 Jan → Mon 21 Jan
Sun 13 Jan → Tue 22 Jan
Mon 14 Jan → Wed 23 Jan
Tue 15 Jan → Thu 24 Jan
Wed 16 Jan → Fri 25 Jan
Thu 17 Jan → Sat 26 Jan
Fri 18 Jan → Sun 27 Jan
Sat 19 Jan → Mon 28 Jan

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/January 2019), 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/January 2019.
  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/January 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.