Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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

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

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

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nominationEdit

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

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

All single files:

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

VotingEdit

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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

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

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

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

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

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

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

Above all, be politeEdit

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

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

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

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

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

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Beijzelde vruchten van een Esdoorn (Acer). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 06:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Acer #Family Sapindaceae.
  •   Info Icy fruits of a Maple (Acer). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The DOF is quite shallow, rendering parts of the subject blurry I would have liked to see sharp. I also find the light not the best, it looks a bit dull. There is no wow factor for me, because I feel many photographers have a similar shot in their collection when starting macro photography. The ice itself is also not the best looking IMO—while I'm no expert—it looks partly molten, with many small rounded blobs of ice. The centered composition with the OOF branch crossing the main subject is also not optimal. – LucasT 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Egyptian Scribe - Louvre January 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 19:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vista de Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 52-55 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Hérault River cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 16:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Allegory Treaty of the Pyrenees Louvre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 09:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done check now thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:First NASA ISINGLASS rocket launch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 02:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ice formations 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info Icicles and ice formations on a granite cliff in Gåseberg, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. The "growth rings" or banding on the icicles occurs as the water in the soil above the cliff thaws during the day and freezes during the night. All my me -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like this series a lot and respect you for preferring this photo, though I prefer the other ones that feel to me like they show flow more and look more waterfally, especially File:Ice formations 4.jpg and File:Ice formations 5.jpg, and specifically in terms of this photo, I prefer File:Ice formations 3.jpg, which because it shows more height shows the flow of the ice more. But every photo in this series is quite interesting. Perhaps more than one could be featured, eventually? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The textures in the icicles are rather mesmerizing at full resolution. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Flood under the Old Route 49 bridge crossing over the South Yuba River in Nevada City, California.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Kelly M. Grow/ California Department of Water Resources, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There is a bit of CA left, I wasn't able to remove it completely. Seeing the size, and that it cannot be retaken, it should be OK. -- Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportJuliancolton | Talk 02:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive composition, sharperning fallen water is always difficult --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yann, I have a version with most of the remaining CA removed. Interested? --cart-Talk 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I am. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I am, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
W.carter: Sure! Yann (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this is a bridge over troubled water. I can't believe those people are actually standing on it ... I wouldn't be (See my own encounter with a similar situation here). Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Michielverbeek -- WClarke 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pont-canal de l'Orb cf07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 22:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Henk Fortuin, het Lage Licht foto5 2017-02-01 15.44.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sognefjorden sett frå Skjersnes.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Norway
  •   Info created by bep - uploaded by bep - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seen on QIC. Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. Very interesting light. Good photographer; I've been enjoying his pictures and sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very pleasant composition. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Mmmm.... --cart-Talk 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As I'm probably off for some days I will support it in advance -   Comment trusting that the CAs (lower border of the rope and the cliffs on the right bank) will be fixed. --PtrQs (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bep: As you surely work with the RAW, could you try to fix this? Thanks in advance! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What a wonderful scene! --Schnobby (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love its smokiness ... I can practically taste salmon in my mouth as I look at it, feel the cold breeze against my cheek, and a slight sense of dread at the prospect of the cold depths below. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu - Bellota de encina 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great esp. at full screen! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant. -- King of ♠ 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There may be something that I'm missing, because while I like the acorn, the frosty leaves that are clear and the light, the composition isn't working for me that much, I think partly because so many of the leaves blend into this resplendent light to such an extent, but maybe more so because of the nature of the arabesque created by the clearer leaves. I think I'd enjoy the composition more if there were more space under the bottom leaves on the left, or at least if they weren't cut off, but of course I don't know what shapes are under them. I'm inclined to respect whatever consensus develops but so far don't feel impelled to vote for this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perky little acorn perfectly placed in the photo, one of those pics that makes me happy to see. :) --cart-Talk 23:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the juxtapositions of seasonal images this creates: the hoarfrost on the green leaves (apparently the holm oak is a broadleaf evergreen, just like the mountain laurel so common in the higher-elevation woods I hike in over here) with the plucky little acorn cart noted suggesting fall. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Echt judasoor (Auricularia auricula-judae, synoniem, Hirneola auricula-judae). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Fungi # Auricularia auricula-judae # Family: Auriculariaceae.
  •   Info real Auricularia auricula-judae (Auricularia auricula-judae, synonym, Hirneola auricula-judae). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great but please remove the dust spot. Thanks! --21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I don't see a dust spot. Clean lines, nice placement of the tree ears within the picture frame, interesting shapes, good light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see it now. Very light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  Done. spot removed. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not only is the bottom branch somewhat distracting, it is also rather noisy, and the edges of the branches sort of look weird and overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: The dead narrow branch in dissolution.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:20110421 Tbilisi Georgia Panoramic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 18:51:52
 

  •   Info Pretty dull, nondescript and shows only a portion of the city. Saw that Poco has 3 panos that are much superior to anything else on Commons. Both this and this are superb (apart from half the image leaning to the right that needx fixing), either would be an excellent replacement. I guess this makes my 2nd active nom so I can do it on Tue, or if someone else wants to do the honors... (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep We delist when it clearly falls short of our modern standards, not if we regret our original decision or if there are better pictures around. This is not enwp, we can afford to have multiple similar FPs. -- King of ♠ 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Looks like a very good picture to me. No reason to delist. I think that delisting should take place only when it seems like an obvious step. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep Per others. lNeverCry 03:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination I have learnt this is not enwp. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Airborne by Christopher Klein, Munich, February 2017 -2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 15:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Casa histórica de Abbasi, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 77.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 19:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View of one of the six courtyards of the Abbāsi House, a large traditional historical house located in Kashan, Iran. Built during the late 18th century, it is said to have been the property of a famous cleric. All by me, Poco2 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question I hesitate to ask, but did you wilfully change the crop for showing that blue border on the right? --PtrQs (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    PtrQs: no, that was not on purpose,   fixed Poco2 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely symmetry and color. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very picturesque --PtrQs (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pepe Lopez Peugeot 208 T16 (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 17:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, probably a ridiculous thought. And I certainly don't think it's problematic in the least. So nevermind, I'll edit it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I was afraid we had reverted to a time before the suffragettes when a woman was counted as half a man.  --cart-Talk 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp photo, beautiful composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but I prefer the other one. -- King of ♠ 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
      Question - Do you think the other composition is different enough to also be an FP? Perhaps it would be a good thing to nominate that one, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    I think they might be too similar to both feature; how about adding it as an alt? (I think the proper rule for alts is not "are they different edits/crops of the same raw file" but rather "are they similar enough that they cannot both be featured.") -- King of ♠ 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    My impression is that alts must actually be different versions of the same shot and that these two photos would definitely be too different for one to be an alt, although the similarity might work against a feature for both. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates about this issue. -- King of ♠ 08:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I'm delighted by the positive response to this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really don't see the point in this photo. Despite the claim it was taken from the highest point on the island, it seems to be the point with the worst view. There are three ugly concrete slabs dominating the photo, along with dirt paths. The distortions of a 360 panorama mean it is very hard to appreciate what the actual scene looks like. The island looks like this and there are high cliffs all round where the photo was taken. Whereas the 360x180 photos have a dedicated viewer that removes the distortion, this sort of image just doesn't work well unless the view is fantastic. I suggest you concentrate on finding the best angle from which to get the best view, and select what you want to photograph. A 360, by its nature, cannot be selective and doesn't really have a composition. -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Draco volans 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4754 smial wp.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info all by me -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like the "Hey, you!" gesture and expression. What are we looking at that appears to be a narrow diagonal shaft of light? Is that exactly what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good stage photo, but I would also like to get rid of that part of the stage rig. Right now it is "impaling" the poor guy. ;) Had it ended up anywhere else than in his mouth/head, I don't think it would have been an issue. --cart-Talk 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek and cart: That is part of the stage construction. Besides some basic corrections (WB, contrast, exposure, crop, perspective, dust spot removal, if necessary) I avoid any retouching, and I'm really not experienced to do so. I've taken slides for 30+ years, and I try to take digital images as authentic as possible, just like "enhanced" slides. --Smial (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation, Smial. The diagonal is a bit strange, but I   Support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, on reflection, the strange effect of the diagonal prevents me from considering this one of the very best photos on the site. So I've annulled my support vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Regardless of the motion blur, I'm inclined to support because of the expression, but similar question as for the other one: Is that a reflection of him and the guitar in the upper left corner of the frame? If so, fine, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No reflection, it's part of the stage construction. --Smial (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photo is sharp, expressive and has some action but... somehow the wow eludes me. It's cropped rather tight and the light is very flat for a stage photo. Making a face and waiving a guitar is not enough to send shivers down my spine, sorry. --cart-Talk 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop too tight, per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Carter  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. I've taken a little series of pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior, of which I like -01 best, although that was a tough choice. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers about 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I thought to nominate it. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really great! --cart-Talk 10:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support again. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info /   Comment cart somehow achieved to turn my simple architectural pics into fancy triptychs, see (1) and (2). Thanks again!   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   --cart-Talk 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective, Komposition, technische Ausführung – alles große Klasse! Glückwunsch zu dieser gelungenen Arbeit. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hinckley Daysailor 42 by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created and such by -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. The breakwater adds an unusual element to this photo. But please add a geotag and much better description plus categories. Since you have entered this in the "Sports" FP category instead of "Objects/Vehicles/Sailboats", I guess the pic is from some competition and that plus location should also be explained. --cart-Talk 09:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you, the photo is of a "Yacht Racing" in an annual NHYC Regatta.--Don (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for telling us! Now could you please add that to the file's description and fix the geocode and category too. Much obliged. :) --cart-Talk 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's great. I've added the rest of the info and improved the categories on the file's page for you. Having all that info there is just as important as the picture itself for an FP. Hope I got it right. --cart-Talk 13:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 1/500 s not fast enough to freeze motion. Charles (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergwandeltocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italy) 23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Mountain Walking Tour from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Views of the surrounding landscape. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice color depth and well composed --Don (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice colors and stunning view. It reminds me of those pictures they had on chocolate boxes when I was a kid. --cart-Talk 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice pic and beautiful have a lady here --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a pretty spectacular picture, especially the lighted rocky mountainsides, and it's at its best at full size. I see the one tree in the near foreground all the way over to the right as a slight imperfection, but I doubt that cropping it out would make the overall composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk)
  •   Support Like a Romantic painting --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Divine. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great layers of light. -- King of ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Salar de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 64-67 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. All by me, Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Another beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Spectacular, though there's a slight ca in the clouds (top/left edges green and right magenta). On another note I think just the small portion of the road and the rocks above, with the clouds behind would be enough alone to make this an fp; but this has so much more. KennyOMG (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    KennyOMG: I've reduced the CAs Poco2 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    Now where's that thumbs up icon when you need it? :) KennyOMG (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Any color fringing is very very minor and requires you to be actively searching for it. Beautiful pano. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A lot of wow! in this picture --PtrQs (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great clouds and color. Maybe just a little too dark though. -- King of ♠ 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat srichum 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support The new version is fine. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per fixable CA issues noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)  Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Tomer T: I really like this photo with its unusual perspective and seeing that Khunkay isn't very active at the moment, I have fixed a version with most of the CA removed and a very, very slight noise reduction. Do you want me to upload it on this file? You can always rollback the edit if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I like that picture, so let's have a look. --PtrQs (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support by now - and a special praise for cart --PtrQs (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question BTW: is it possible to describe what we see in real english? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done --cart-Talk 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also pinging @Uoaei1: and @Daniel Case: to let them know that the pic is cleaned up now. --cart-Talk 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting, good quality. --Yann (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ...forgot to support it too! ;) --cart-Talk 21:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I thought the curvature might be a distortion, but other photos of this Buddha show the same curvature. I would have loved a tad more sky, but I won't decline to support based on something that trivial. Impressive photo of a very impressive statue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW -- Wolf im Wald 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PhuSangWTF 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bokeh looks somewhat weird but doesn't detract from the overall image. KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Upper left part is somewhat dark, maybe this is improvable. The description says "English" but it obviously isn't. Should be fixed as well. Otherwise an excellent picture which would get my support. --Code (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Dark left part attracts the attention to the right part, and that is most important part. Please don't reduce the left darkness too much --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Something different, thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Picture is fine as it is, but the "English" description should be fixed. --cart-Talk 10:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment description fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I've decided I like this enough to support a feature. It's best at laptop screen size, not at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WTF could be changed --The Photographer 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support People doing interesting things in interesting environments – wish we had more of that kind of images… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Piling on. --Yann (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Any photograph like this of a planet in our solar system is going to have a high degree of uniqueness, though I'm not blown away by this one. The colors are nice, though the resolution and detail isn't anything special, especially when compared to other similar photos of planets, like this one of Pluto from 2015. Sorry. WClarke 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would   Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support agree that resolution leaves quite a bit to be desired, but stunning nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Dull lighting, no wow for me. Also per WClarke. Yes, it's special because of the subject, but as a non-expert this is not interesting to look at. I find this falls into the category of the more boring planet photos and I would gladly support the more exciting ones out there. – LucasT 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could do a good service if you can find some higher-quality NASA photos of the entire planet of Mars and upload them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – LucasT 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several big Mars photos on NASA pages (1 2 3) , but how do we know if they are free? --cart-Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.
I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment shame about the people. Charles (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Generally well-done, but as a slightly unsharp (especially the left edge) 7 MP image with no mitigating factors or the feeling of "wow, we have to promote this even if the quality is a bit lower than usual." -- King of ♠ 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH --PtrQs (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King. Seems to me that the image might have had some serious overexposure on the building which was brought under control at the cost of looking overprocessed (something about the blue in the sky doesn't strike me the right way). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it; the composition is good and the path with people walking up and down reminds me of a picture book -- Thennicke (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support no pseudo sharpness visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Pudelek, could you possibly sharpen the citadel a bit? I find absolutely nothing wrong with the composition. The only thing that makes me unlikely to vote for a feature is the noted slight unsharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the composition, but the technical part could be better. Overall nice work! -- Wolf im Wald 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:HibisGate3Dareios1AmunRaMut.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 15:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PlayaVarese-04920.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – LucasT 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition but the blown highlights on the surf and building are too much ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky does not really impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – LucasT 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tomas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't decided how or even whether to vote on this photo, but in some ways, I prefer several of your other photos of the Kotel to this one: File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7689.jpg has a satisfying near-rectilinearity as compared to this one's slant, and I like the motion of the men walking toward the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7691.jpg, which concentrates on the women's section, shows the pitchers for the blessing on washing, putting the wall in a different context, though there's a dust spot that should be cleaned toward the right above the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7690.jpg shows men praying and touching the wall from an appealing angle. None of the photos are perfect and all can be critiqued, but all are good and different. However, compared to the others, I can't think of anything that strikes me about this one as special. So that's likely to result in either a non-vote or a mild oppose vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas; a very static image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is not a bad raw material for a great photo. I think that a crop would give it a much more forceful look, the angle and the wide floor makes it a bit touristy. See note. I downloaded it and tried it, it came out very nice. Try it. Anyone else agree? --cart-Talk 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Good eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7543.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a well executed photo and a worthy QI, but it misses the wow factor for FP status. You might find the sight interesting and impactful but the photo doesn't bring this out for me I'm afraid. – LucasT 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - Could be a bit sharper, but the composition works for me. I like the contrast of the Cimitero Monumentale with the modern buildings to its right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. It seems the building is cut in half at left. Yann (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I only mildly support this photo, and there's no argument with "no wow", but what do you find overly complex about this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: If you imagine the flower bed and empty driveway/whatever space at the bottom cropped out, along with some of the left (maybe I'll have to make it in a note), you get an image with a lot more harmonious vertical forms, and the similarity I noted is more evident. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. See what I mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Arguably less interesting, but yes, also simpler, and I do see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:RPM abstract at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
  •   Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – LucasT 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course...   lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gibraltar Barbary Macaques BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info all by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stunning image and I feel it has FP potential. I have two problems: 1. It looks a bit soft, I would sharpen it more, there is detail to be revealed in the fur. 2. the powerlines cable car cables are distracting, sadly. I saw that they are easy to remove, and I did it for fun. Feel free to nominate this as an alternative if you like it, or if you allow I can nominate it myself:
     LucasT 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is an FP as is. The power lines don't disturb me at all; they're part of the deliberately somewhat unsharp but sufficiently clear urban background. The slight softness of the monkeys is just that - slight softness. I wouldn't object to judicious sharpening, but I think they're quite clear enough, as this is not a species-identification photo but a touching urban scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables are probably a cable car, not power lines, but it is better without them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – LucasT 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables don't bother me since they follow the composition of the monkeys but there is room for a bit more light in the photo. The name of the file should also be fixed since it doesn't mention the main motif, the macaques. --cart-Talk 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll   Support it, hoping that it might turn out a bit brighter. ;) It is such great image otherwise. --cart-Talk 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The face of the left hand animal is blurred and I don't like the cables, nor the lighting. Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support We can discuss the technical and compositional issues all we want, but the fact for me is that I can't get past that pose. I think we already know what the 2017 PotY will be, based on how the public votes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:River Narmada from Maheshwar Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Oppose Too dark Ezarateesteban 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)   Neutral let´s wait Ezarateesteban 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think the chosen composition and lighting work perfectly here. There are "precedents" btw., cf. this great image, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is great, and to me the whole point is that we're viewing a river and the opposite bank from a dark place, through its beautiful decorations. This is one case in which reducing the darkness would also reduce the magic (or if you prefer, the effect). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The windows make a beautiful frame to let you look out - and I think to lighten this darkness would spoil this frame. --PtrQs (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support to me the Darkness is nice, better than HDR. --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A very poetic triptych, HDR would totally ruin it. --cart-Talk 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would have included the shadows more. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The concept of framing is a nice idea, but the scene through the frame is too mundane, and not interesting. Foreground shadows should not look this dark, and should have a little detail -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Without the dark foreground the lights falling on the ground won't look that beautiful IMHO. The contrast here is helping create a mood. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Sumanta. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wouldn't necessarily object to a little more shadow detail, but full tone mapped HDR? No way. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Pena National Palace. Sintra, Portugal. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great shot - unfortunately it's not up to the technical standards expected here, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, but the things that actually bother me somewhat about this photo are, in order, the unsharp evergreens that take up most of the foreground and the hazy grayish background. Yes, the palace could be clearer, too, but if it were 100% sharp, I still would be unlikely to support a feature if the foreground and background were identical to what's there now. I'd encourage you to take more photos in better light without unsharp foreground trees (or at least fewer of them) if you make another trip to Sintra. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimla night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info -- Perched on a hillside Shimla is the current capital and largest city of the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Previously it was capital of the Indian state of Punjab and, before independence, the summer capital of British India. Shimla is a major tourist destination owing to the large number of colonial buildings, temples, churches in the city, the UNESCO World Heritage Kalka-Shimla Railway, and the mild subtropical highland climate. All by me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo! So this is where the shot the backdrop for Blade Runner. --cart-Talk 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support After some days of waiting for the next wow - this is it! --PtrQs (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive night photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even though all the details are visible, the overall impression is too dark. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, KoH, but I have long contended that magic hour pictures are not the only way to shoot night pictures and, depending on the scene, might not even be the best. I guess we agree to disagree on this point. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture for such a dark and humid night. How long was the exposure? WClarke 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1s + 4s + 15s, iso 200, f/8. Overall it's pretty close to the 4 sec exposures. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely colors and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Totally loved it. Great execution. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iridescent clouds during snowfall 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
  •   Info Rainbow-colored/iridescent clouds during a snowfall over Lysekil, Sweden. The fringes of the clouds are so thin the water droplets in them produce rainbows. The photo is taken during some interesting weather in the afternoon so it is the sun you see and the dots are snowflakes. All by me -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment My first thought was that maybe that's what happened last night in Sweden but then I saw the timestamp so we will have to do some more research. Regarding the picture I find it very good compositionally so   Support from my side. --Code (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Moody and interesting. I like how the blotchy clouds over the disc of the sun sort of imitate the lunar maria. Or maybe that's just me, who knows? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is certainly a good photo, though I haven't decided yet whether to support a feature for it, but I prefer File:Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall.jpg, which has more snow and the dark trees as a dramatic contrast with the sky. Just sky is not quite as striking to me and gives me less grounding, literally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that pic very much too. Unfortunately, I think the cut sun in that will make it a no-go for the folks here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? I didn't realize there were objections to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you can stay out of the cold for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, just moon with clouds. --Karelj (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So sorry, but it is the sun. :) --cart-Talk 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, it is a sun. Sorry, but in such a case it is even more "common" image. --Karelj (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Then you are very lucky to live in a place where such scenery is common and you can go out and take photos like this of iridescent clouds around the sun any day. How I envy you, it must be beautiful. It is not so common here. --cart-Talk 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: This image is far from common. He's just trying to save face and clearly failing to do so. We men often feel the need to defend our egos in this way...   lNeverCry 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Larnaca 01-2017 img37 LCA Airport.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the long depth of field and the decorations (structural elements?) on the ceiling, and the light is pretty good for an airport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motive, well balanced and implemented. The contrasts of warm and cold give the image a special touch. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Sharpness overall just ok, nice ceiling, the rest nothing wild, too dark overall Poco2 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination. I for myself hesitated to suggest it, as I know airports with much more interesting iteriors. On the other hand, the picture is QI and it is almost impossible to create *perfect* photos of airport interiors, because, unlike Diliff's and Code's churches, they are never empty of people ;) -A.Savin 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Our churches are often busy, we just twist the truth by being highly selective about when to click the shutter. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too boring for me. No wow. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Draceane – LucasT 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Having taken a similar picture that is one of the QI examples now used for "depth of field", I salute this image as exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photoEdit

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I will duly   Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as creator. dllu (t,c) 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Wed 22 Feb → Mon 27 Feb
Thu 23 Feb → Tue 28 Feb
Fri 24 Feb → Wed 01 Mar
Sat 25 Feb → Thu 02 Mar
Sun 26 Feb → Fri 03 Mar
Mon 27 Feb → Sat 04 Mar

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

Sat 18 Feb → Mon 27 Feb
Sun 19 Feb → Tue 28 Feb
Mon 20 Feb → Wed 01 Mar
Tue 21 Feb → Thu 02 Mar
Wed 22 Feb → Fri 03 Mar
Thu 23 Feb → Sat 04 Mar
Fri 24 Feb → Sun 05 Mar
Sat 25 Feb → Mon 06 Mar
Sun 26 Feb → Tue 07 Mar
Mon 27 Feb → Wed 08 Mar

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

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

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot 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/February 2017), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2017.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.