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:The Love of Paris and Helen by Jacques-Louis David.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 10:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Has frame; so {{Art photo}} if needed. Jee 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 09:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info Swiss made needle file set. All by Lucas.
  •   SupportLucas 09:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - More great work! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I know this is just a b&w image, but can you restore the EXIF information and colour profile please. Perhaps a stage in your stacking workflow is removing the EXIF data. It is possible to copy EXIF from one file (tiff, jpg, etc) to another using EXIFTOOL. Btw, if these are thin files, why is focus stacking necessary? And how would a 20mm increment help -- surely they are less than 20mm thick? Also, information about stacking and stitching is best put on the file description page, and there are templates to help with this. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Colin: 1. I restored the EXIF as you wished. Which is a bit important as this image is not grayscale, it does contain color. 2. Focus stacking was necessary because at f/8, the best aperture of my lens, the DOF wasn't large enough. The 20 mm increments are from left to right in the image, not in depth, I moved the camera along the files to get more resolution. I added that info to the description texts.– Lucas 13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bombus soroeensis - Jasione montana - Tallinn.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 18:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
  •   Info Broken-belted bumblebee on the sheep's bit scabious. All by Ivar (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Bee looks good and sharp as does a good part of the flower. I like the other little bug under the flower. lNeverCry 01:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose This image feels a bit too normal to me. I have some of such images in my own collection, not with pollen but they look very similar. Going through the FP category, there are some images with bigger, more visible pollen than this one, and in terms of visual impact / lighting this one is a bit boring and flat, IMO it doesn't stack up with the majority of the other FPs of bees. – Lucas 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Stausee, Anleger -- 2016 -- 2859.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 16:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in a partially frozen river Ljubljanica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 15:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sandvikens AIK vs Västerås SK 2015-03-14 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 10:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info Sandviken player Niklas Gälman defense against Hammarby players in the Swedish bandy championship final game of 2015. I like this image since it shows the beauty of Bandy. Bandy is all about speed and movement. Unlike (ice) hockey bandy is non-contact sport and played on a rectangle of ice at the same size as a football field (allowing the players to build up very high speed before receiving a pass, making it difficult to defenders). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The focus is on the guy with his back to us, rather than on the ball or on the player facing us who is about to hit the ball. So my eye keeps getting drawn to someone's back. Other than that, it's not a bad scene. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 01:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Poertschach Halbinselpromenade Seeblick nach Osten 11012017 6019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 03:44:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I have to admit, I find the cut-off tree at the right margin problematic. Forgive me, I am changing to   Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention that others change their mind :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 01:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination You are absolutely right. Those scares were also mine, a reason why I hesitated with the nomination so long. Anyway, I thank you all for your honest opinion. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Mohsen Makhmalbaf at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre 2011.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 02:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castillo de Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-04, DD 41-46 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 19:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info View of the Castle of Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, Spain. The castle was built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop and stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory. The castle was never conquered and was successfully defended against the King of Castile in the 13th century. The successful completion of the Reconquista at the end of the 15th century ended its military significance. Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent image size, DoF and quality, hight EV, nice composition. --The Photographer 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • only   week support <spam> because the resolution can be a bit higher ha, ha, ha ...  ;-)</spam> --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - LOL, Alchemist! I don't think you'll get any complaints about the sky or unsharpness with this one. It's just a pleasure to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment stunning image, but the bushes on the bottom right of the image are significantly more blurred than the ones on the lower left. Are they out of the DOF? I made a note in the image. --Lucasbosch 22:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the source pictures probably suffers from shaking blur (the seam can be seen). - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ---Pudelek (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing view - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose as per discussion above, one or more of the source files are more blurred than the others, and the seamline between sharp and blurred images is visible. See image notes for an example of a blurred spot. I'm jealous of your 5DS R though. --Lucasbosch 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is that big of an issue on such a large picture though and probably that most wouldn't see even on a moderate large print. The blurred area doesn't cover parts of much interest. - Benh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And depending on what kind of shots you do, you really needn't be jealous of the 5DS. As it's been discussed, If you are a macro, or still object guy, it won't bring you any much advantage over any other FF or APS-C given sensor of same generation. - Benh (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Benh: 1. I would love to support this image, but the different levels of sharpness and visible seamline because of it are bothering me. Would this image be of less resolution then it might no be visible even at 100%, but given the resolution, these shortfalls are visible. 2. I haven't followed these discussions. I'd love to have more resolution available for my studio shots, just for the sake of seeing more details, so I'm jealous. --Lucasbosch 12:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, I agree a high-resolution sensor has an advantage for single-shot photos such as your studio. We try to avoid penalising photographers for uploading full-resolution photos or huge stitches like this. Try the 50% downsize I link below. That's still 28MP and very sharp. If you'd support that then there is no reason to not support this. Opposing over 100%-size pixel peeping of a >100MP image just encourages folk to downsize prior to upload, and then we lose detail that can never be retrieved. As I'm fond of saying, if your monitor is a standard 100DPI, then this image is over 4 metres wide, and you'd probably view it from a couple of metres distance at least, rather than normal monitor distance. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Thanks for your thorough explanation, I strike my oppose. I would welcome allowing/encouraging photographers to upload downsampled images instead of full sized ones like this, to hide flaws better and avoid pixel peepers like me. In fact I would have downsampled this in secret if I were in the same situation, as the resolution is plenty even downsampled. But I understand that having sharp parts of the image is considered more desirable for the Commons project than having less pixels but with the whole frame being perfect. --Lucasbosch 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, if the software can downsize on-the-fly then why downsize on upload? Actually, for huge stitches most photographers already downsize a bit to ensure the detail is sharp, which it is for most of this image. I don't see the point in uploading full size if it is soft/blurry all over, and for big stitches there is no value in making people download a big file that is not sharp. When we get folk uploading 6MP landscapes that pass FP, it isn't really fair to to penalise others who don't downsize. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: You say yourself that some people already downsize so others don't have do download a panorma that isn't sharp corner to corner. I don't think this image is any different, albeit being much more resolution. My opinion is that such a panorama should have equal sharpness over the full frame, and not rely on downsampling to achieve this. If there is a soft part, downsample until everything is constistent and thus the seamlines become invisible. I find a 100MP image which is soft on some spots and sharp on others kind of more wonky than a pristine 6MP image. I see your point, too, that you throw away detail on parts of the image in the process. So I wouldn't want to penalize him for not downscaling, but the different levels of sharpness which reveal seamlines, and I don't want to see seamlines. I believe in a pixel perfect uploaded file not reliant on downsampling to achieve even sharpness. Even if this requires downsamling before upload. Agree to disagree ;) --Lucasbosch 14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you don't want to see the seamlines, and I wish the stitching was better. But you have a choice to examine the image at this level of detail. Nobody forces you to download the full size image and then display it on your screen at 100% while examining it closely. A good review test might be to judge the whole image fullscreen on your monitor, and then to examine for flaws at some intermediate resolution. If you'd support this at 12MP, say, or 24MP, say, then any extra resolution is simply a bonus. I think that unless the image was huge and very soft/noisy all over, then I'd be reluctant to complain about the size being too large. We have a culture here of pixel peeping that harms people's generosity in uploading/creating high-resolution images (vs Flickr where many images don't even fill one's screen). The result is some photographers really do upload 6MP landscapes from their 36Mp cameras and get and expect to get FP. Of course, minor errors only visible at 100% on a large image may be worth pointing out to see if they can be fixed. If you have a high DPI screen, then much of this pixel peeping concern simply disappears. Our standard 100DPI monitors are the equivalent of taking a magnifying glass to a print. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support That bottom right is an issue, but given where it is and the image resolution, I think it can get away with it. -- KTC (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There is a flawed frame and perhaps the stitching could be improved (IIRC you just use Lightroom - have you tried PtGui with SmartBlend as the blend tool?). But the resolution of 111MP makes this visible at 100%. A reduction (see this link to a 28MP 50% downsize) hides such sharpness problems and the whole image is very sharp indeed. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploaded a new version where I cropped the right side a bit to get rid of the area that somehow wasn't as sharp as others. If the result is not satisfying I can offer also this other version with a far wider view. Thank you Benh and Colin for making understandable that images with more resolution are not always comparable with lower ones and users of a camera like 5DS shouldn't be punished for that. It is indeed not as easy as it was with the 5D Mark II to get all images sharp. Poco2 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Colin did most of the lobbying :) And, pardon me if you already knew, but If your pipeline gives you access to the seam mask, it's very easy to edit it and soften the transition from sharp to blurred area. This would give a better result I think, but this take for granted the "common" area between the source pictures is large enough. - Benh (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The new crop doesn't just chop off a bit on the right, but introduces some to the left. I like the road on the left, but this is a different enough picture that I think you should ping all who have voted so far. It isn't like you just removed a dust spot. As for the other one you link, it is far too wide and also has quality issues. There is still an issue with a seam (to the right of the rocks) that could be handled better if, like Benh says, you took control over the join there (or used Smartblend, which I find is often better are placing seams and not crearting blurred seams). -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Photographer, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts: @Johann Jaritz, Tomascastelazo, INeverCry, Martin Falbisoner: @Code, Cayambe, Michielverbeek, Gnosis, Pudelek: @Lucasbosch, KTC, Colin: Dear all and sorry for the disturbance, I just wanted to let you know that I've cropped the image (mainly on the right) to get rid of the blurred are. I'm informing you just in the case that this change would affect your already emitted vote. Poco2 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Poco, I like the second crop the most. Now the main subject is no longer centered, and this is a bit weird IMO (but this still has my support). I don't garantee anything, but just in case, I offer assistance to implement the above mentioned solution. - Benh (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer Benh. Will look into it this weekend and probably come back to you then. Poco2 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the crop from the time of original nomination. There's still a visible seam in the new crop, which wouldn't go away unless the you crop much closer to the rock. While now the rock the castle is sitting on is actually centered, the castle itself is now a bit off to much to the side to me. Then again, if the new crop was the only version offered, I would still had supported so I'm certainly not going to object now. -- KTC (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please go back to v2 and ignore the naysayers. It was The Perfect Composition. KennyOMG (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that this one is "better", however, both are perfect to me, IMHO --The Photographer 11:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Антена пелистер 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Two dust spots below the cloud that's at the upper right corner must be removed before this photo could be featured. Chances are, there could be others, so the photo should be edited with a fine-toothed comb. However, once that's completed, I will vote to support. The motif is interesting, but what really makes the composition for me is the complementary snowy-looking cloud pattern. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I will remove the dust spots, but could you please mark the areas on the image? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done The dust spots have been removed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the composition with the large white areas and the antenna being so small in the frame doesn't work for me. I feel like much more would have been possible when having been there. – Lucas 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is a snowscape photo that includes some man-made structures, not a photo that zooms in on those structures like a laser beam. The antenna is small in the frame because it and the other snowy structures are part of the snowscape, which extends to the clouds in the sky, as they look like streaks of snow, too. I find it totally appropriate for the man-made structures to be part of the picture without dominating it, and other details like the footprint track to the center left of the picture help, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Matka 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Basotxerri: and @Martin Falbisoner: take another look please. --The Photographer 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Thank you, The Photographer, that was very kind of you to fix the image. However, it still doesn't convince me to support it as FP but I'm willing to abstain. Perhaps others will support it now. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Despite The Photographer's work to improve it there is still a little bit more noise than I'd like. The area on the boat behind the man looks blown as well, something you wouldn't expect in this kind of light. And, frankly, the composition has too many clashing elements for it to work for me even if it were technically perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - the CAs are too bad --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is a botched cloning stamp job right in the center. Follow the road in the background of the cliff and the two intermingle, the cliff in the foreground dissolves... --Lucasbosch 15:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks for pointing this out. There's a lot of support for this picture. Do you guys think the nomination should be withdrawn? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Serious technical problems. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but not excellent . Too many problems for an excellent vote. Je-str (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose until the technical problems are fixed. Huge wow factor though. -- King of ♠ 00:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King and Ivar. The CA alone is so egregious that I didn't even bother to look at the noted cloning problems. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Under the circumstances, I'd like to withdraw the nomination, but I have a question for everyone: If I withdraw and then Chensiyuan fixes the problems within a couple of days, can the nomination be reopened, since the deadline for voting is January 27? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Osnabrück - Piesberg - Feldbahn 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I really like the peaceful natural scene, the light and the birds. The mood is somewhat spoiled by the plane and its contrail, and that's the only reason I didn't nominate the photo, myself. I think we should accept this as part of "nature" as we humans have made it, but that's a decision each person has to make, and it's really the major element of content in which the innovation of the Impressionists like Monet in "Impression: Aube" deviated from the tradition of idealistic depiction of pure nature for city people that goes back to ancient Rome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Request +   Comment a crop of 10-15% of the empty sky, will be better works for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      Done Thank you, I think you're absolutely right, it's better with less sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support it works better now. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I won't change my vote, but I consider the new crop unfortunate, because it crops out a higher-flying bird that was flying in the other direction. I think the composition was better and more peaceful with more sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I have no problems with standing on the tracks since it is explained in the description that these are museum tracks used only in the summer. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportAnd 7...--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Iturrieta - Fagus sylvatica 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thank you for your vote, King of Hearts. The background isn't sharp because there was fog, breaking up and closing again. Of course that could lead that someone could dislike this... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Special Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Monochrome was a great idea for this one. Brings out the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just for my curiosity: can I see please the color version too? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please give me a couple of days, I cannot prepare this right now. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Marmora Formation closeup.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 16:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Rocks and Minerals
  •   Info: all by СССР -- СССР (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Definitely a very interesting photo for VI, but no great composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't look like a FP to me for it being a flat texture, no visual impact. --Lucasbosch 17:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Lucas. Perhaps a smaller portion of it might have worked. Texture needs to be more uniform. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Reflection of Parque Cultural Paulista building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
  •   Info Inspired in Alvesgaspar minimalist pictures . All by --The Photographer 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support first impression is that someone laid a grid over a regular sky shot. Nicely aligned! --Lucasbosch 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good idea and an awesome result! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This grew on me. I like the interaction of the windows and the sky. By the way, I don't consider this photo minimalist in the slightest. If it reflected a cloudless sky, that would be different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Only the slightly off tones of some of the windows give it away as not being a gird overlay. And the distorted parts. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Winter-Regnitz-PC310004.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ANZAC Parade from the Australian War Memorial, Canberra ACT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 09:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade Westbucht und Pyramidenkogel 11012017 6006.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 08:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iridium-1 Launch (32312419215).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 21:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:F-22 Raptor flies during the AirPower over Hampton Roads Open House at Langley AFB Va., April 24, 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 20:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sala de Conciertos, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 22-24 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 19:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kids playing Pallanguli.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Lucasbosch 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucasbosch. If the two girls weren't partially cropped, I might very well consider it featurable, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Ikan. Good idea, but composition isn't FP level. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perhaps a VI or even QI, but otherwise per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Regietów Wyżny (Рeґєтiв) - dzwonnica 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I quite like this composition, but please crop out the stray bit of wood near the near left corner. I'm also wondering what the photo would look like if it were extended a bit further to the right to encompass more trees. I'm guessing that's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not, but I cut off to the left --Pudelek (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a little while before voting, but as I said, I do like it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice colors and clouds. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support Nothing like this nice summery scene to grab my attention on a wet and cloudy January day. However ... it would be better if the purple tinging on the clouds could be fixed or somehow ameliorated. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    I think that the purple is not bad... the storm was near --Pudelek (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I really like that wooden bell tower, and the rest of the composition - especially the light and clouds (the purple doesn't bother me - I've seen purple-rimmed clouds with my naked eye) is good enough to satisfy me. I think this photo is special enough to be among the elite. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2015 Winobluszcz trójklapowy 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 12:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Abstract. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Figurative to me. :-) But I like it, too. Instead of calling it abstract, I'd say it has a very dynamic, flowing, satisfying structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the image doesn't impress me enough. The crop is quite narrow, so there only are so many leaves in frame, instead of a whole side of a house. I can imagine the rest, but I'd like to see it to be more impactful than that. --Lucasbosch 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's pretty, but I'm not really sure whether the subject is supposed to be the leaves or the drainpipe (Or is it supposed to be some kind of woodwork? See what I mean ...). Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 04:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportAnd 7... --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:08A112 in Chasha Depot.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 04:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info A5 Metro train was stopping in Chasha Deport, Canton, China. created by Towermega - uploaded by Towermega - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas1024 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Legolas1024 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great composition. -- King of ♠ 05:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Again I made the mistake of judging on my 1366x768 laptop while forgetting I was on my laptop, and assumed it was large enough because it filled my whole screen. Switching to   Neutral due to being minimum resolution without anything to compensate. -- King of ♠ 04:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Nicely composed, but unfortunately the glare on the rear carriages spoils it for me. —Bruce1eetalk 06:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice composition, but too small Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Perfectly good QI, I think (I guess it would remain to be seen whether it would pass if nominated at QIC), but compared to the great photos of trains in nature by Kabelleger, Poco and others, this palls. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose On the one hand, I would like to strongly encourage more photos of trains or rail vehicles from above or below the view plane rather than on it ... as this shows, it can add more interest. And I love all the cool colors.

    However ... as King notes the small size works against it, and I also think that large cloud flattens the light and distracts from the train a little. There are also perspective problems apparent at the right of the image.

    This, unfortunately, is why I wind up opposing so many DP/S images no matter how wonderful they otherwise could be. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Question - What does DP/S stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"Digital point and shoot". In other words the type of low-end digital camera widespread before the advent of the smartphone. A lot of my early pictures here on Commons and Wikipedia were taken with one. Some of them actually made QI, but I'd never dream of nominating them for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 20:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, just a very good QI --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei1. Dull colors don't work well against cloudy sky and the forms by themselves are not enough to overcome this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Lucasbosch 12:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose needs crop and better light (sun) --Mile (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong in both points. --A.Savin 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wire-tailed swallowEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 12:03:20 (UTC)

  • I had talked about it to him. It is from some tree parts. It is appreciated if someone having good processing skills help to remove it. Jee 12:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Manojiritty and Jee I removed the noise, if you think that it's not ok, simply revert me. Thanks --The Photographer 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Both images made my day this morning. --smial 13:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Amazing image, however, background noise, chromatic aberration and bird aura, different light background for the images --The Photographer 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)   Support --The Photographer 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support For a photo of a bird in flight / docking, at 420mm, and at around 10MP, this has good sharpness and is an excellent catch. I can forgive the slightly noisy background from ISO 1600 which really shouldn't concern us at 10MP wildlife photo, and would rather that than crude smoothing that risks losing detail round the birds. Shame the shutter speed changed between photos, but strangely the one with the longer exposure is darker. Were they processed the same? If the raw file is available then I can have a go, but am reluctant to process the JPG any further. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colin. He is away; will share the raw files after two days. Jee 04:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Plenty of wow-factor for me, and if Colin is good with the technical aspects, I can't see any reason not to support this impressive pair of images (and birds). lNeverCry 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The lighting is suboptimal, but the huge wow factor is more than enough to compensate. -- King of ♠ 01:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ! -- KTC (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Colin and King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! For technical information: The different look of the two pictures is based on different WBs, so if you adapt them (the right one is colder), they look rather similar. And there is some CA. --PtrQs (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The white balance seems to be off. Otherwise great images! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC) 
  •   Support - I thought about this for a long time, and ultimately, I agree with the others that capturing a great moment like this is worth a little motion blur, which I figure is unavoidable in this situation, anyway. But harmonizing the white balance of photos taken just a moment apart would be the right thing to do, in my opinion, if you can do it without damaging anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We'll get the raw files and hope we can solve that issue soon. Jee 11:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Colin, I just mailed you the raw files. Please check. Jee 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Just at the right moment, excellent --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Gnosis (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Jee has sent me the raw files. I had a go at reprocessing them and sent him some draft copies, which he liked. I have fixed the issue where the exposure level is inconsistent, and also cropped them both such that the second picture is positioned relative to the first. I have lightend the exposure a little for both, as it seemed a bit under-exposed (shout now if you feel the exposure is currently correct). I haven't uploaded anything as I still have to Photoshop out the brown blur on the RHS of each, and hope to find time for that tonight. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Please @Colin:, could you upload the raw files to commons archive Thanks --The Photographer 12:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
User:The Photographer you will have to ask the creator, Manojiritty, to do that. And most people don't upload their raw photos as it lets them retain some ownership. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I underestand, sorry --The Photographer 12:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploaded a new version of both files, with permission, with exposure and framing aligned between the images. The images are a little different as no two people will process a file the same way. You may have to refresh your browser's cached copy of the image with Ctrl-F5 or similar. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor, Lucasbosch, The Photographer, Smial, INeverCry: @Livioandronico2013, King of Hearts, Martin Falbisoner, KTC, Christian Ferrer: @Jacek Halicki, Uoaei1, -donald-, Daniel Case, PtrQs: @Johann Jaritz, Frank Schulenburg, Ikan Kekek, Tomascastelazo, Michielverbeek: @Gnosis, Jacopo Werther, Schnobby: -- Colin (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1 tianzishan wulingyuan zhangjiajie 2012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 09:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lacking a geocode but otherwise... -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 09:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Thennicke. Great light, fine composition, impressive resolution and fantastic scenery! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Lucasbosch 12:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little bit of posterisation at the top left but overall fine. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like something from Lord of the Rings! lNeverCry 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's a gorgeous scenery and normally a no brainer support... but it looks quite tilted to the right - Benh (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes I noticed that. Pinging @Chensiyuan: for comment. Otherwise we might just have to rotate/perspective correct and reupload ourselves. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, Thennicke, you said we should have more China FPs, and then you found this ... wow! Can't find a more Chinese landscape than this. I hope I get to go back there again, and when I do I want to see this place. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: Yes it's a great image isn't it! I'll be nominating more panoramas from this uploader; some are even better than this one -- Thennicke (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:De zon probeert door de mist te breken. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 06:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info The sun tries to break through the fog. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. created all by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the combination of the traditional "landscape-in-fog-mood" and the double sun; it gives an almost surreal expression. --Pugilist (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Best here is you dont see the horizon. Love winter colors. --Mile (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I had this in my list of possible nominees, too. Great photo, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Support Jee 12:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "I look around / Leaves are brown, now / And the sky is a hazy shade of winter". I have taking a few pictures trying to capture that concept; none of them have come anywhere near this one. Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Paris-7957a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by idobi - uploaded by idobi - nominated by Idobi -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning. I love the way the moon appears. Quality could be better especially on the right side but sufficient for FP. -- King of ♠ 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose great composition, vivid colors, excellent mood - if only image quality were better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like composition, perfect moon-clouds situation. Its not so sharp, but saw camera is not the latest model.--Mile (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It either is or is not an FP, based on the results, regardless of what equipment is used. And in this case, I think it's too noisy and unsharp to be one of the greatest night cityscape pictures, although the composition is beautiful. I would welcome any efforts by idobi to address these issues, because I'd love to be able to support this picture, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I find it a beautiful picture, but the quality is not great.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Even given that it was a long exposure, we've seen that these images can be less noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches 6–19 mm.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 17:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches set from 6 to 19 mm. This is a shift panorama using the Canon TS-E 90 mm because my acrylic plate wasn't large enough for the whole set, additionally it's a focus stack of 5 to 6 images. Post processing to remove dust and make the background pure black.
    Created by Lucasbosch -- uploaded by Lucasbosch -- nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • LB Did you check "landscape" version ? --Mile (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: What makes you ask? Could be that I missed to set it appropriately, but there seems to be no place to check that as far as I can see. What would happen if it is set wrong? --Lucasbosch 12:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucasbosch Nothing is wrong with the set. Try to rotate it for 90 degress. It works better. --Mile (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: For my taste it looks fine the way it is and it is more space saving when being placed on the right side of articles. Also, the majority of the text on the wrenches is oriented this way, so it's easier to read. --Lucasbosch 14:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Look forward to many more contributions from you. - Benh (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    +1 lNeverCry 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Again, not my favorite subject, but this level of excellence deserves recognition, and that means a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects#Tools

File:Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 09:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All water reflections of trees are beautiful. I think this picture is missing something, like brilliant colors or an outstanding composition, that would set it apart from the others. -- King of ♠ 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info @Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts, Jkadavoor, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner: @Livioandronico2013, INeverCry, Agnes Monkelbaan: I added more saturation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colors are nice, but nothing quite worthy of FP in terms of the subject IMHO, it's not so interesting. I would have liked better separation of the trees in front and the background trees, to make it more visually appealing. --Lucasbosch 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast beween the dark trees in the foreground and the brighter trees in the background --Llez (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Llez. I also have to say, particularly in response to King, that having looked at more than my share of water-reflection images while creating and populating those categories, this one did make me stop while scrolling through here. What to me works is that the trees sort of suggest a colonnade, and a slightly irregular one at that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for putting into words what I think a lot of us had probably noticed unconsciously. Christian Ferrer, the slight change in the new edit is fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good job Christian. Quite a nice natural abstract. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Berdorf (LU), Aesbachtal -- 2015 -- 4550.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Unsharp foreground on the left is slightly distracting to me and might be cropped out, but I don't know what that would do to the composition. And the composition is the main reason I support this picture. It's a kind of lovely miniature landscape, with the cobwebs between the plants accentuating their formal relationship in the picture frame. It's best viewed at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm too distracted by all the plants on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case, a tighter crop would to accentuate the main subject would be nice.--Lucasbosch 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'll crop out a part of the bottom within the next days. --XRay talk 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. Too many random plants that are in focus distract the viewer. -- King of ♠ 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others an no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed @Daniel Case, Lucasbosch, King of Hearts, Uoaei1: Crop is now improved. Hopefully it's better now. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, still doesn't work for me. There are a lot of in-focus plants on the ground, so I don't think there's any way to fix it by cropping. -- King of ♠ 01:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is the first time I realized that you're objecting not to out-of-focus plants but to in-focus plants! You're considering this a macro of the two plants, not as a miniature landscape. I don't think in a landscape you'd normally want everything but 2 large trees to be a blur, would you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Caye Caulker Belize aerial (20688990128).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by dronepicr on Flickr - uploaded by User:Dronepicr - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is an outstanding drone picture. My only hesitation in nominating it is that I hope people don't vote against it because the angle of the photo makes the ground diagonal, instead of straight, but I nominate it, anyway, to see what you all think. P.S. I didn't see a category for drone or aerial pictures; if you know of a good subcategory to add to the "Category" line, please feel free to add it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No, I find the ground fine; as long as the horizon is level, which it appears to be. Great find too! Really lots of wow, and for a drone pic image quality is ok, but could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I really should involve myself with Photo Challenge more, but I wish there was some "QI" barrier to the nominations or something - unfortunately some of the winners are shocking from a photographic perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's because the judges have to work with the submissions they get. When they get higher-quality submissions, the results improve. Quite a few FPs have been among the top 3 results in photo challenges over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You will have to rework the colors here, think blue is +, green is missing. Some saturation maybe. --Mile (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colors and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, I struggle to decide what the subject is --Lucasbosch 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No argument on "no wow", but to me, anyway, the subject seems obvious: the bright area smack dab in the center of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: The file name is, mainly, "Caye Caulker Belize", which describes the islands, so already the file name is not optimal/confusing if the white thing is the main subject. Also the white thing seems to be only captured in part, there is a missing part on the bottom left, confirmed by satellite images. --Lucasbosch 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for expounding on your point of view. I don't share it, but I understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 13:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Moscow ParkKulturyR vestibule 04-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 07:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
  •   Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the colors and enjoy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I just can't keep my eyes off the power lines. The left crop is also a little distracting. -- King of ♠ 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Power lines. Yann (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cables in foreground and lamppost to the left leans distractingly much. Main subject itself is quite nicely lit, but the overall composition does not convince me, sorry -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak support I have faced this same dilemma so many times myself ... great angle but for the wires. And so many times I've sighed and put the camera down. So молодец for trying where I usually give up. And for doing your best to make them less distracting instead of cheating entirely and cloning them out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Per the others, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The curves in the photograph are great, even if the power lines distract from it some. WClarke (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Orange hibiscus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 00:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - You might have moved the blue chairs (I think they are) away, but they arguably add interest to the background, and pro or con on the chairs, this is a great closeup of the flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The blue object/s aren't natural. I would've moved them. They distract from the flower. lNeverCry 03:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose, background is noisy and it seems a little underexposed to me. Nice color though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background elements. Center of flower is not as crisply resolved as I would anticipate in a a flower FP, sorry. Colours are good though, and it is refreshing to see other topics than church interiors nominated by you. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks Slaunger, but unfortunately it is a rumor. I have [1] FP of paintings, statues, panoramas etc ... it is logical that something is more common as many people have more of FP of flowers, insects, or ... churches. Greetings.--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Livioandronico2013: Thanks for clarifying, that you are not a church interior only FP creator. It was the only type of FPs I recalled having seeen previously, but I did not double-check.-- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Natural nude tree.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 20:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please tell us why you think this photo should be featured. I'd like to have your thoughts on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I could tell you it is a study on texture and volume, or that the forms on these trees are interesting, or that I and some others have a dirty mind... ;) Please see #REDIRECT[[2]] and #REDIRECT[[3]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reject. Charles (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, it was clear for me after a split second, why you nominated this, Tomas. Hahaha. Well spotted. A brilliantly illuminated trunk, nice texture and shape. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. File:Enterolobium cyclocarpum 01.jpg has much greater visual impact. I would support that. lNeverCry 02:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried to explore some suitable categories. Jee 04:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, nothing featurable here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - So ultimately, I think this is a moderately funny joke, since it was explained to me, but the composition doesn't really add up for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good shot of interesting stuff. I would decrease sky noise a bit, and put into description is it active or a museum. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I slept on this photo, and my verdict is that it's beautiful. Decreasing the sky noise would be fine, but it's a very fine grain that doesn't bother me at all. I really like the texture of the wooden chapel and fences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good image but the shadowed fence make it not outstanding. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, I like the alternation of light and shadow and think it contributes to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree. The main subject is literally in the "spotlight" this way. I'm not sure whether it would have resulted in a better outcome had I waited for afternoon sunlight to also shine on the palisades. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Delicate light and colours on the main subject and very balanced composition. I do not mind the fence in shadow. Sky could be selectively de-noised, but it is really only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The shade is not so prominent in a large view. Jee 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would say edu. value as first here.--Mile (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely done -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support well composed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Heaven Shall Burn - Rock am Ring 2016 - Leonhard Kreissig - 25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 00:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by LeoDE - uploaded by LeoDE - nominated by LeoDE -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The singer is in a strong pose, but the background is unattractive. This would've been better if he was at left in the frame and some of the audience took up the right of the frame. lNeverCry 01:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  Info Just for Information: Audience wasn't possible due to the huge pit. But thanks alot for your feedbak --LeoDE (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very powerful concert foto. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Frank! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition, background lighting, sharpness. Charles (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is a good and expressive concert photo, and I like the background stage illumination. It is as if it pushes the singer towards the audience. The crop of the foot could have been better but oh well. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles + random compo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is for sure not one of the very best --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like this photo, but ultimately, Uoaei1's argument really cuts to the heart of the matter and carries the day for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Window detail De Bazel Vijzelstraat Amsterdam 2016-09-13-6627.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 22:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info De Bazel is a monumental building in Amsterdam named after the architect Karel de Bazel. It was completed in 1926 and stands as an example of Brick Expressionism. This nominated picture is a detail of the facade, including four windows, and shows how bricks are used as ornamentation in complicated patterns. Today, the building houses Amsterdam City Archives. Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid! Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 07:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture. Love detailed images like this of architecture, and the blue contrasts well with the brick and stone. WClarke (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and the seventh :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Worker in São Paulo city.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 12:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Obrigado caro Arion, por qué vc paro de nominar minhas fotos? --The Photographer 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Photographer: Olá meu parceiro, na verdade eu pausei minhas atividades no Commons, por motivos pessoais. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support The monochrome brings out the grittiness of his work, and the chaos of his space is nicely contrasted with the geometric orderliness of the surrounding facade. Another great bit of street photography. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great scenary. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The B&W adds a nice sentimental touch, but when I ask myself "Is this the best we have to offer?" I think it falls short. His pose and facial expressions are all rather ordinary. -- King of ♠ 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - If you had cropped this closer, I might want to feature it. But as it is, the door to the worker's right (viewer's left) distracts me too much, when what I'd really like to focus on is the scene in his workshop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow + per King. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel Case. --LB 19:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Panorama of Auxerre.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 20:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Your note hasn't shown up yet. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd also suggest a tighter crop (see my note - I couldn't find Miles' yet) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hope now is there. --Mile (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - My problem with the photo as is is that I don't really like the right crop, which cuts through a boat (and also what seems to me to be a concession stand, but I care less about that). However, I'm not sure if either of the two suggested crops solve the problem for me. My main hesitation in terms of Martin's crop is that although it's neat, cropping out the tall tree might have an adverse effect on the form, making it unbalanced between right and left, plus I'd just miss seeing that tree and its reflection. Something similar to Mile's crop might be helpful, but I wouldn't suggest bisecting the reflection of the trees near the near right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Whilst this is well-processed and it's a lovely image, the right crop is too bad and I don't think this can be rescued in post. This kind of thing needs to be thought about in the field, unfortunately. Turning the camera a little to the right would have saved this. The reflections and processing are definitely impressive though. I hope my review is helpful. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not work for me, too much foreground water, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support now. Jee 03:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Gut feeling: Even with this crop, this is a good to very good picture but not one of the most outstanding on this site. No offense intended. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral An attractive picture (I love the autumn colours of the trees on the right), but it's a bit unbalanced with the left side "higher" than the right. I also find the NR (?) smears too many details away. - Benh (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Minox C 8.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 17:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Komatsu bulldozer pushing coal in Power plant Ljubljana (winter 2017).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 07:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles
  •   Info Komatsu bulldozer pushing coal in Power plant Ljubljana (winter 2017). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Just like Kabellerger's shot of the train going across the bridge, the color pops against the natural winter monochrome behind it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This image is good, but I feel uneasy looking at it because you seem to have rotated it to make the bottoms of the tracks horizontal - really, what needs to be horizontal is the bucket, because that is what is in the center of the image - and at the moment the bucket is tilted heavily to the left. Which would be fine if the dozer was going uphill, but the composition does not contain clues to that, and therefore this is uneasy on my eyes. I also think this is slightly overprocessed - too much contrast. Good, simple composition though, and Daniel's comment about the colours is spot on. I'll definitely support if you fix the problems I've noted -- Thennicke (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thennicke Good, first, i couldnt say is bulldozer in normal position by nothing here seeing vehicle alone, but look i have some luck. See note, there is part of high building on right side, you can see vertical line is positioned good. This was one of quick images, nothing much to change, contrast same, but offset changed to my taste to -0.0124. Offset and crop. So, no rotating, this path goes some 10-12 % uphill. --Mile (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, now that you point it out I see it. However, a person looking at the thumbnail will not notice it, so that isn't good. And for that reason, I stand by my statements. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. No problem with the angles for me, and the distant buildings on the right confirm that no rotating has taken place. —Bruce1eetalk 17:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast between the yellow dozer, the black coal and the white snow. Nice and creative idea. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - There is a lot of energy in the picture. Nice composition and I am not worried about the angles. --Pugilist (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles

File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·(二道門).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 03:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info The first gate of Beijing Dongyue Temple. The gate is located in Chaoyangmenwai Street, Beijing, China. And it is one of the MHCSPNL (Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level) created by Legolas1024 - uploaded by Legolas1024 - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It's a good subject and you're using a good camera, but for these kinds of low buildings you're almost always best using a landscape orientation. The processing is not great either, but that just requires practice. Also, at 1/30th of a second, you'll struggle to get truly sharp images. One thing I do like about this image is that it's quite symmetrical, and it's great to see nominations from China - we don't get enough of them. If you'd like more feedback to improve your photography skills, have a look at commons:Photography critiques -- Thennicke (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Excellent composition, but I dislike the sky (and trees) enough to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Thennicke. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The symmetric view through the gate is good, but the light is dull, the sky burns the leaves of the trees and the portarit aspect ratio is not the adequate choise. Actually, a square crop may have been better. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sun 15 Jan → Fri 20 Jan
Mon 16 Jan → Sat 21 Jan
Tue 17 Jan → Sun 22 Jan
Wed 18 Jan → Mon 23 Jan
Thu 19 Jan → Tue 24 Jan
Fri 20 Jan → Wed 25 Jan

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

Wed 11 Jan → Fri 20 Jan
Thu 12 Jan → Sat 21 Jan
Fri 13 Jan → Sun 22 Jan
Sat 14 Jan → Mon 23 Jan
Sun 15 Jan → Tue 24 Jan
Mon 16 Jan → Wed 25 Jan
Tue 17 Jan → Thu 26 Jan
Wed 18 Jan → Fri 27 Jan
Thu 19 Jan → Sat 28 Jan
Fri 20 Jan → Sun 29 Jan

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below (except to add categories on the file page, 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 {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the 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/January 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/January 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.