Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


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


Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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}} -- ~~~~.


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:Abtei Seckau Basilika Innenraum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 11:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •  Info Interior of Seckau Basilica, Styria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Nice church and good picture, but considering the extremely high standard of church interiors by Diliff and others, I find this picture insufficiently sharp and probably without sufficient detail of the altar to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Sadhu in Janaki Temple, Janakpur-September 22, 2016-IMG 7437.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 08:22:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • He looks more like a Sadhu. Although many of them make a living from the donations, they are not beggars. Mendicant may be more suitable. Jee 08:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. In any case, this needs to be clarified and fixed. cart-Talk 09:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for reviews.. @Jkadavoor: @W.carter:
    •  Done File renamed..
    •  Done Suitable description..
    •  Done Suitable category.. --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - It's quite arguable whether this photo should be featured - everyone should have a look at the Featured Pictures in Category:Sadhus and note that some of the photos are of better technical quality - but I think it should because it's a different kind of sadhu picture than any of the Featured or Quality pictures of sadhus on this site, it's of acceptable quality and it's moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Fort Jay New York September 2016 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 05:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♠ 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - This subtle composition felt borderline for FP to me, but what made me decide to support is the historical importance of the place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 07:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not “wow” at all. The quality is good enough, but not perfect. IMO, there was no reason to take this photo towards evening. On the one hand, special atmosphere of the evening isn't “drawn” here, on the other, the evening light isn’t good and we have the rather dark, dull photo. (P.S. As a photo of an important historical place it can be nominated at Valued Picture Project). Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC).
  •  Oppose As Dmitry Ivanov (more or less). Good composition, but very bad light, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The quality is ok but the shades prevent to see the details.--Zcebeci (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Aularches miliaris-Silent Valley-2016-08-13-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 04:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Arthropods
  •  Info Aularches miliaris. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jee 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Great insect and the composition is quite acceptable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks like something the props department for a SciFi movie would conjure up. :) --cart-Talk 07:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Shrinika performing Abhinaya (Kede Chhanda Janilu Tuhi).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 02:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gersfeld, Panorama, b.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 20:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
  •  Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Oppose - I'm not feeling impelled to support this effort, although of course I respect it. The composition isn't very interesting to me, with nothing that striking and quite hazy light in the middleground and background, including the town of Gersfeld. I think that given the quality of the panoramas we've been seeing at FPC, this is not outstanding enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 03:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiche bei Graditz.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 20:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
  •  Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Nice oak tree, but not an interesting enough picture for me to support. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 03:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support nice tree. We need more nice images of trees! :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good quality, but centered composition with midday light isn't very appealing. --Ivar (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support A very good and clean shot of an oak, hard to get since the good specimens usually are in dense groves or places with disturbing things. I like that the shadow in a way gives the oak a sort of "visible root". But please add latin name in the description and categories. --cart-Talk 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Centered composition, I'm sorry no wow for me --The Photographer 11:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Mentha arvensis - põldmünt Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 20:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:PL-PK Mielec, mural nad Wisłoką w okolicy parku Oborskich 2016-08-24--10-07-36-002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 19:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aspen Highlands bowl from Loge Peak .jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 17:34:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Elisa Bonaparte with her daughter Napoleona Baciocchi - François Gérard - Google Cultural Institute.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 16:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •  Info created by François Gérard/Google Cultural Institute, uploaded by Zhuyifei1999, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Gigapixels image of a colorfull painting. The whole image is too big to have in one piece (around 3.36 Gpx(!), above the limit of 65535 for JPEG images).
  •  Support -- Yann (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - Do you have a good suggestion on how to view this image at full size? The large image viewer showed me only a small part of the picture. I was actually able to view the picture normally by clicking on it, but attempts to zoom to full size failed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek plz use Mozila Firefox... -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I always use Firefox. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, W.carter: I never try to see such huge images with a browser. I download it and open it with the local image viewer, or Gimp/PS/etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral per Ikan since I'm having the same issue at the moment (and I'm using Chrome right now, and I have never had that issue with any other images, even larger ones). Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  1.  Comment -- same issue in chrome but not in Mozila firefox. --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 Comment - As I said, I have this problem in Firefox. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dschwen: Is there a bug with zoomviewer? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Well I've tried it with three different browsers and even if I have a really good broadband, I still can't get any of these pics to open properly (they start uploading and showing only to blink out and vanish). I'm not voting on something this hard to see. The project is about easy access to good material and this is not like that. --cart-Talk 08:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Panorama von der Milseburg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 12:35:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •  Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - The crucifixion is really dramatic and dominates the picture, in my opinion, with the rock outcropping as the secondary focus. I find the overall composition good, the sharpness and resolution very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't feel the 360 panorama is producing a successful composition. I suggest your start and end points aren't the best. If you shift the centre to be on the cross then you end up with a 360 that makes more sense to my eyes, starting and ending with the rocky outcrop. That seems like a more typical 360 panorama, and worth uploading. But now the cross is centred and Christ facing left. So then I might crop the a bit off the left hand side to remove the rocky outcrop, and more off the right hand side to place the cross roughly one third or one quarter in from the right. That to me is a better composition -- it makes sense that you are then standing on the same hill as the cross, and have some context/scenery either side, but Christ is facing into most of the frame. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I think Colin's suggestion is a good one, and I'd like to see the result if you choose to try it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many blown areas on clouds, common to exposures made at ISO 80 in my experience. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't have any problem with the bright areas on some clouds. The clouds are one of the best features in the photo, and it is a shame there isn't a bit more vertical room. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Colin & Daniel. INeverCry 06:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the scene at lower half part is darky because of the clouds' shades --Zcebeci (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Utö kyrka October 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 08:58:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created &uploaded by ArildV - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I love this composition, the light, and the counterpoint between the clouds and the autumn leaves. The church is sharp. There's some unsharpness at the left, but I don't think it ruins the photo at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 09:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ezarateesteban 12:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, a very good QI with no doubt, but nothing special enough for a FP in my opinion. Especially the church is just common.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - If this were just a picture of the church in a dull or blue sky, I might agree with you, but not with these clouds and autumn leaves. Mais chacun à son goût. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the autumn colours of the leaves, the interesting sky and the painted church in between. There are subtle features also leading the eye towards the church. The wide-angle view over-exaggerates the perspective of the church a bit perhaps. -- Colin (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The whole is greater than its parts, and that's saying a lot considering how strong the parts are—the church steeple severe and solitary against the mackerel sky, the leaves on the ground accentuating the message the gravestones around them convey of the impermanence of life. You could not do better if you were to pick a scene on which a hypothetical Bergman movie were to begin. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) attacking, Amsterdam island, Svalbard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 08:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Sternidae_.28Terns.29
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment When breeding, these guys are extremely aggressive and protect their nest or hatchlings from the air by painful strikes with their beaks. The only way to protect oneself is either to stay at a safe distance or to lift something like a walking stick (or the telelens) above the head. I'm trying to explain that this image resulted from a risky departure... -- AWeith (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Great capture, and the areas that are blurred by motion are quite OK, under the circumstances. I didn't realize when I first saw this photo that you were the object of the attack! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There were three of us and we've all been victims; one after the other. --AWeith (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Going by our usual (extremely high) bird-standards this is a rather small and not as-sharp-as-usual photo, but as an action shot of a bird protecting its own, it's superb. The action is embedded in the motion blur of the slightly distorted feathers, creating a beautiful silhouette. (Being picky, I could ask for a few extra lines of pixels at the top since the wing tip is rather close to the edge.) That is one angry bird... --cart-Talk 10:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 6.6 megapixels is fine for a bird-in-flight photo and the head is sharp. Behavioural shots of wildlife are especially valuable and uncommon. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Strong support Per Ikan. I will add for myself that having seen similar behavior from Arctic terns in the Arctic, and having made a few attempts to photograph them in normal flight, this is no mean feat. Image's technical deficiencies are more than adequately compensated for by what it captured. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 04:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Maria Taferl Basilika Kuppelfresko 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 06:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:President's Summer home, Rio Negro Palace, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 01:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •  Info President's Summer home, The Palácio Rio Negro (English: Rio Negro Palace) is a palace located in Petrópolis, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All by -- The Photographer 01:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- The Photographer 01:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Weird light, not very sharp and several dust spots just above the building toward the left. I'd love to see a similar motif with more sharpness in better light, maybe with a tighter right margin to eliminate the partial inclusion of some uninteresting buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharpness especially in lower left and lower right; I feel like standards have risen to the point where a standard centered architectural shot will either need a really good lens or panorama stitching. I disagree with Ikan on the lighting though, I think the cloudy day is great for bringing out the beautiful colors of the building and grass without worrying about shadows. --King of ♠ 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, far from being sharp enough, leaning to the right (at least it seems so to me) and the light's not pleasing. --Code (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per unsharpness at depth (look at the areas to the sides of the building) and slight tilt noted by Code. Although I wasn't bothered by the light—for a light-colored building like this, it may have been a good idea. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the reviews, I did the follow changes:
    •  Done Sharpening and composition (with another picture of the same section) in corners and dust spots. @Ikan Kekek:
    •  Done I cut the border to eliminate the partial inclusion of some uninteresting buildings.
    •  Done Leaning to the right fix. Thanks @Code: @Daniel Case:
This picture was done on a travel to Petropolis, Brazil and this picture was taken using tripod. Anyway I hope had improved the picture, thanks again --The Photographer 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - You improved the composition, but it still isn't up to FP level to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Sultan Pasha Al-Atrash2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2016 at 09:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fuerte Bordj el Kebir, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 34-36 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2016 at 03:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment - Well, making the stars almost completely invisible is one way to deal with the issue, but I find it very disappointing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan: I removed them all and took me a while to do so, editing each of them to make them look like spots is a request that I've never got so far and would take me much longer. If other reviewers agree with that I can do it, but right now I hardly have time for that, I could give it a try when I am back home and still I'm not 100% convinced about that approach. Sorry, as said, I only was able to do this change in the time frame I've now. Poco2 07:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand. I think the stars improve the composition somewhat, but if the only way to get rid of the trails is to delete the stars, I still find the resulting picture featurable.  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice colors; a little soft near the top left of the fort but ... it was a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) at Magdalen fjord, Svalbard (1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 21:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Phocidae_.28Earless_seals.29
  •  Info created by AWeith - uploaded by AWeith - nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I know the filesize is somewhat small; however this guy was nosy yet very, very shy and would not come any closer. Therefore, I had to crop the image rather extensively. Nature photographers designate the view of the white in a seal's eye the best they can ever achieve. I guess spotting yourself on your RIB in its eye is not much worse ... -- AWeith (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose light flares, dust spots and noise, fixable of course.  Support Excellent clean job, It's ok for me, maybe now you will need ping everybody that already voted --The Photographer 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Since AWeith is rather new to Commons he may not know how the 'ping' is done, so hereby I 'ping' those who voted before the cleanup to let them know what has been done: @INeverCry: & @King of Hearts:. cart-Talk 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that what you are referring to as "dust spots" might be out of focus water drops from general splatter or from the the seal exhaling near the surface. But if you see something that needs fixing, please make notes of it on the file page and let AWeith fix those minor flaws himself if he likes to, instead of doing your usual own fixing. cart-Talk 09:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your recommendation, I have added the notes. --The Photographer 11:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time to indicate the critical spots! I am entirely with W.carter on the origin of them; however I agree they are disturbing. I have, therefore, just uploaded a new version with removed spots and reduced noise. I'd appreciate your second look. --AWeith (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Mostly for the sheer artistic quality of the photo. --cart-Talk 09:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 14:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm tempted to vote for this photo on the same basis as W.carter, but was the seal really that blue? Other QIs of harbor seals seem to show them as white and gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The seal is wet and therefore he's reflecting the sky the same way the water does, so he takes on the color of the water. Our grey seals here in my town looks the same when wet. (Yes, we have seals and "seal safaris" here.) --cart-Talk 16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly that is the case. The other seals of this herd not swimming (e.g. resting on the flat rocks) are rather beige in their fur color (see also my QI pic with the "dry seal" and the wet one tempting to climb onto the same rock as the dry one). On top, it was the blue hour in the shadow of Losvikfjella, which is 1083 meters high.--AWeith (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Thanks for the explanations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - absolutely! I know full well how difficult it is to shoot seals, otters and the like when they're in water. This one made me smile! Good job, AWeith. Atsme 📞 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per cart's !vote, I like the way it almost looks like it was shot in monochrome. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. Very nice. —Bruce1eetalk 06:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:NSB El 18 Hallingskeid - Finse.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 21:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •  Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This was a rather difficult shot to get. Apart from the good weather, which was just a lot of luck (and by "luck" I mean "LUCK!!!"), the location is hard to get to. It's inaccessible by car and the nearest train station is a one-hour hike away (which is a nuisance) and has very limited service (which is a problem). Our solution was to to rent two bikes at Finse and follow the Rallarvegen. My butt still hurt two days later, as I have not ridden a bike for like 10 years and the Rallarvegen is not in good condition in many places...
  •  Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I particularly like the reflections, and much respect to you for the great efforts you made to get this shot! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support and for future treks: Norwegian roads are not made for bikes but for walking or Gå på tur. :D --cart-Talk 09:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 16:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is no embedded colour profile and the Colorspace EXIF tag is "Uncalibrated", which means "not sRGB" and so suggests the image might be in AdobeRGB colourspace. Is this an out-of-camera JPG and if so have you set your camera to AdobeRGB for JPGs? A colour profile is absolutely required for non-sRGB images to display properly for almost all users, and required even for sRGB images for those users viewing with wide-gamut monitors. If you are unsure how to fix the image, ping me. I can also insert the relevant tags (without affecting the JPG quality) if you know what colourspace it is. Other than that, it's a great photo. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment It's sRGB. I use sRGB everywhere because everything else is likely to cause problems sooner or later. However, I store the JPEGs (in current PS) without color profile because I found that it's not needed. Maybe that's not the best idea? As to where the EXIF tag comes from, no idea. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, if your software you use to develop your raw files can export a JPG with an embedded colour profile, that's excellent and needed to ensure accurate colours. User:Colin/BrowserTest explains the problem, though it is hard to appreciate without a wide-gamut monitor. Jeffrey's Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer is a useful tool, as is EXIFTOOL upon which it is based. -- Colin (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I've uploaded a new version with color profile. Note that it has small changes in brightness, these are because I did some corrections after the raw import, and I don't have the exact values of those anymore. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Almost looks like it's on another planet. This and some of your other FPs have prompted me to create Category:Water reflections of rail vehicles Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Chertkov Mansion, left wing, windows.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 20:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by Dmitry Ivanov - uploaded by Dmitry Ivanov - nominated by Dmitry Ivanov -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition, hash contrast, lef column shadow is distracting --The Photographer 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - I like the composition. Of course it would be better if the column were on both sides, but I like the composition, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition, but without that left harsh and bulky shadow please. cart-Talk 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. I think the two window arches and designs above/below make an interesting geometric abstract. But the statue on the left, and its shadow, detract. Not sure whether this is fixable at another time of day. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Red admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) underside 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Washed out details, especially on the red parts of the wing. Postprocessing has gone too far or the lens are not up to task? --Ivar (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I do hope you are not being serious. Please search the Internet for other images of the ventral side of this butterfly. Charles (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment How about this one: --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment I rest my case. The colours on mine, including the 'red', are stronger. Charles (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Red channel blown; I think. White to on the extreme end. Jee 17:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
            •  Comment I concur, perhaps too much contrast was added in postprocessing? In that case it should be easy to fix. --Ivar (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Unsharp foreground is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Lovely bokeh, and great work on the butterfly, but the flower in front is just complex enough to be too much of a distraction from it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kalahari lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •  Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Can you add some more exposure? --Ivar (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I don't understand your request. You want it darker or lighter? Charles (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Add exposure compensation. --Ivar (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Very mild  Support - I like the head and body of the lion. I also like the composition, except that I don't love the crop on the right side or the unsharp foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as it is. The lion's head is absolutely beautiful at full size, but the photo is a bit too dark and the right crop is not good. As it is now it's distracting since I keep wondering what has been cut off; is it a tail, another lion, leftover from the dinner gasell or... cart-Talk 09:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per cart. (a minor issue, possibly fixable is the sky is rather noisy especially chroma noise and a bit of posterisation). -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per cart, who as she often does says everything I was going to. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kloster St. Trudpert - Gesamtsicht1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 05:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I detected some dust spots in the sky. For sure I'll erase them this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    Erased now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support First class. -- -donald- (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Beautiful landscape and excellent quality, but there is a rather noticeable halo between running the entire length of the border between the sky and the top of the mountain; did you make any unusual local contrast adjustments? --King of ♠ 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    No. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    Weak  Support despite the slightly strange sky. --King of ♠ 23:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 08:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit centered... otherwise just great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice landscape! --Ivar (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Would be better to remove the "UFO's" in the sky :-) --Laitche (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Color space in EXIF says: 'Uncalibrated'. Why? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Schön! Another landscape I want to walk in. Would be nice to have a geotag, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gastdozentenhaus Universität Stuttgart 2015 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 02:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very lovely, but a bit dark for me. @Julian Herzog: Do you think you could make it a bit brighter? For me +0.5 EV (with 10 highlight recovery to prevent blowing out) would be ideal. --King of ♠ 03:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll have to trust you on this one, I'm currently without a monitor that I would trust. I brightened it by about 0.4 EV, hopefully that's fine. Thanks Nikhil for the nomination. — Julian H. 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Code (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 08:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Beautiful composition. It's great that pond is so clear that we can see the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 22:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •  Info A 225 megapixel panorama of the Royal Albert Hall from the gallery. Taken when the hall is open to visitors on the weekend of Open House London 2016. The large purple mushrooms / flying saucers are fibreglass acoustic diffusing discs, installed in 1969 to solve an echo problem. They are lit by an array of LED stage lights. The stage is empty and strangely grey compared to the colour surrounding it. If you have problems viewing this image in your browser, use the interactive large-image viewer, or one of the smaller downsized versions, all of which are linked from the file-description page. It's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so viewing fullscreen is best (Press F11 on Firefox). All by me. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support New size standard and excellent sharpening. Colors a bit purple aura, however, it look like reals colors. Maybe my favorite picture this month on FPC. The composition look also excellent, however, I would like to see more in the bottom, what happend?. Anyway, congratulations for this contribution --The Photographer 22:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The purple colour is the result of the fairly monochromatic stage lights, which are a pain to photograph. Coloured stage lights are always artificial in their effect, but these LED ones seem especially unnatural. As for the bottom, well that's the lowest I've got. The balcony handrail prevents being able to see much more below and I wasn't prepared to dangle my camera over the edge to get a better view. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your explain --The Photographer 11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice, but who need this size of an image??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The other day Slaunger told me he was proud to see one of his large panoramas on display as a huge poster. The interactive viewer makes it possible to explore the scene, rather than just look at it at 1980x1024. I think this is a rich enough scene to reward exploring in detail. It also looks great on a 5K monitor ;-) -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Absolutely flawless. --King of ♠ 23:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Great achievement! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support stunning --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice. I guess a lot of effort has been put into this picture. --Ximonic (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Size, sharpness and colors are impressive. But that's not all. Cut and composition are unbalanced und suboptimal. A full spheric projektion from a more central shooting location would have been the better choice here. --Milseburg (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have another panorama taken (but not yet processed) taken from a central box, lower down. I suspect it will have symmetry that is pleasing, but also contain a lot of the empty stage, which is less photogenic at this time. I felt this view showed more of the audience as well as the stage. While I won't argue about your opinion on the composition, I disagree that there is necessarily one best view -- a venue like this merits photographs from many locations A 360 projection like here would be wonderful but note that we were only given access on Open House day to a few boxes and to part of the gallery, neither of which are great for 360 views, and would be cluttered with fellow Open House visitors. Diliff told me has been trying for a long time to get photo access to the Albert Hall, and was not successful -- they are always busy setting up for performances and couldn't find a slot for him to be free to take photos. Category:Interior of the Royal Albert Hall shows this is not a frequently photographed venue, and most other photos are snapshots during a concert. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Technically excellent, but the colours are not typical of the Albert Hall in normal lighting. Charles (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Charles, as a concert venue, lit by whatever lighting the team wish to put on, I'm not sure what one would regard as "typical". See View from your seat and virtual tour for various examples (though since the JPGs on that site do not embed a colour profile, they appear way too saturated on my wide-gamut monitor with most browsers). Here's an example from Open House 2014 that has the discs coloured red. Here's one that is blue. Here's a single-shot photo take from a similar position with similar colours, though this time there's a red light on the roof and their saturation is higher. Do you have an example image that shows typical colours, or "normal lighting"? -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment No I'm afraid not Colin, but I've been there 20+ times, hence my comment. The acoustic discs are off-white. Charles (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Charles, Ha! Yes I know what the colour of the discs are when there are no stage lights on ... because halfway through taking photos for this stitch, they turned off all the lights. Thinking my stitch was ruined, I held my breath for 90 seconds before they turned them all back on again. Whew! The unlit discs are like this photo. Not pretty, and probably would work better in a photo taken from lower down where the discs are not so prominent. I too have been to a classical concert, many many years ago, where the discs were not lit. But all the photos on the Albert Hall official site show them lit colourfully. This older classical concert photo shows the neutral lighting one might expect (though it doesn't include the discs, there's not purple in the gallery or on the organ), yet this recent classical concert photo shows the purple stage lights in the gallery and a purple organ, so I suspect would also have purple discs. A Google Image search for "Albert Hall Interior" has coloured discs vastly outnumbering unlit discs. So I disagree that there is "normal" lighting for the Albert Hall, which hosts many concerts and events with differing requirements for light, and suspect that un-coloured discs are now actually the minority situation, rather than "normal". -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow! A very hard to get to subject. Well done, excellent technique, very pleasing composition, very high detail level. Valuable. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the colors ... slightly surreal, perhaps, but they add interest. And they make those accoustic discs look like what I thought them to be at first ... some way of trying to figure out how many holes it takes to fill the building (Sorry; you knoew someone was going to try that one ). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kolvitsa river.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 21:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Langkofelhütte Gherdeina.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting; the sun seems to be right above the subject. Unfortunately this leads to dull colors. --King of ♠ 19:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd like you to pay a visit here. I'd be more than happy and honoured to give you hospitality--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per KoH. INeverCry 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no FP because the mountains are unsharp = false focus point!?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree both with KoH and Alchemist-hp. I find the place very beautiful, the composition good, and the picture more than good in general.--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jebulon. It seems excessive to require mountains to be totally sharp when they're in the background or at least middleground. I think they're sufficiently clear to make sense in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful  Oppose - beautiful scenery, but not sharp enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. Very striking perspective to the mountains but at first I though the lighting is somewhat bland. I think there has happened a little focus error. --Ximonic (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Has an embedded AdobeRGB color profile. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. For web use the recommended color space is sRGB. An AdobeRGB version is OK as an alternative as it may be slight better suited for making prints. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Deeply regretful oppose As much as I love Wolfgang's images of the Italian Alps, and really thought he had nailed it in entirely new ways with this one, the opposes are right: the summits are far too unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California LCCN2013633353.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by Carol M. Highsmith - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This photograph is part of a batch upload project from the Highsmith collection at the Library of Congress. Motivated by the lawsuit against Getty Images, see Village Pump archive. As the TIFF is a large download, over 100 MB, the Commons full size jpeg version is a useful alternative to view. -- (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 09:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --The Photographer 11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good composition (but disturbing lower left corner), poor choice of aperture and lens. Yes I know, its a professional photographer but f/5.6 and a zoom lens is obviously not optimal. The quality (photo and camera from 2012) and depth of field s not impressive, not very high wow imo. --ArildV (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Cabo de Gata, Andalusia, Spain.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Cabo de Gata, a natural mediterranean site near Almería, Andalusia, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow, rather dull light and boring "mediterranean" architecture, sorry--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Paw. aaaargh. I'm dead. Please call an ambulance (or the coroner, better).🤕🔫--Jebulon (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Is it really necessary to make fun of a serious comment? Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Nothing is really necessary. Nor participating, Neither useless comments, neither lessons. Sadly. Only fun is necessary. Always.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment I know, this is the way to kill candidates ;-) but, it's unfortunately (for you) the way I feel about your picture. Salue --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment Salut ! Happy to see you understand what I mean. It is not the case for everyone here, as I can see... Well nothing "unfortunate for me", just a nomination of a picture in FPC. Nothing serious, then. Thanks for comment and vote, caro amico.--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd like to see some clouds, but otherwise I like how the shapes work together. Any other composition would've thrown it out of balance. INeverCry 08:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Moroder --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - The interesting landforms are really what make the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wakefield Cathedral Choir, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 13:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Nice image, good composition. Looks like perspective problems at the top. Lights at the windows (and background) may be a bit overexposed.--XRay talk 15:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate  Support per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Is there somewhere I (and probably the many others who might like to do this) could just go and say "our signatures on this page constitute a support !vote for all of David Iliff's tonemapped images of church interiors; should we want to !vote otherwise we will make that clear on the FPC page"? But then again I often leave comments with those support !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:On the balcony, Paris August 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 09:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info created by besopha (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as it is now. The perspective is a bit distorted and a bit at the bottom could be cropped off for a cleaner and more balanced photo. cart-Talk 10:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. Thank Carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perspective is fine now, thank you :), but I'm still bothered by the 3/4 "main" down left. IMO cropping away that (see note) would also result in a cleaner pic (the pic would depict exactly two floors), but other users may have another opinion. Let's wait and see. cart-Talk 12:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just as a Parisian, for reviewers: it is really typically parisian. For the rest I agree with cart.--Jebulon (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes I know, I've been there many times and I love it. :D cart-Talk 17:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This is a nice, pleasant picture and I like it, but I don't find it special enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A very Parisian image, as Jebulon says, and one I would expect to see in a decent magazine article or travel guidebook perhaps. But, that said ... per Ikan it doesn't work as a featurable image. There's too much going on. I do think that the photographer is on to something, and that an FP in this vein might yet be produced. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 08:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Westminster London June 2016 panorama 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 06:18:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically perfect as always and kudos for getting up that early to get this place without any people, I bet it's packed a little while later, but the light is too dull in most of the picture and it does not give me a wow factor. One of those moments where it probably felt magical to be there but it doesn't quite translate to the photo. Sorry. cart-Talk 10:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per cart about the light, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support nice for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This doesn't quite make it for me because of a combination of the light and its not being as sharp as I'd like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per W.carter; an excellent job getting us there but not much there to get to. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Lifebelt on a small fishing boat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 22:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
  •  Info So, here is the new tweaked version of this picture. (Hope I did the nom right with all the formal things.) As I've said before at QIC, I sometimes think I'm partially blind when it comes to my own pictures. I miss things that I easily see in other users' pictures. So those second pairs of eyes this site provides are invaluable, this time it was Daniel who gave me a push in the right direction. And since it was he who did it, I got the idea for a square crop instead. :) Don't know if it is perfect, but I think it is far better than before. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- cart-Talk 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This doesn't quite work for me as a FP. The vertical vs. diagonal is interesting but makes me feel a little off balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support since it's pretty much what I suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In the original, the railing looks like you could lean on it; now it looks like you might have to climb it. I like the idea, but the proportion of the railing is off now. INeverCry 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose random crop and no wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly, you really call a crop "random" when several lines end perfectly at the picure's borders in carefully chosen spots? I wouldn't mind if you call it "bad" but I don't think "random" is the right word here. cart-Talk 15:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wrote: "random crop for me". So it is. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:El Paraíso tunnel main gate of Caracas.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 19:03:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yes, however the other one has more merit IMHO, because @Rjcastillo: risked his life (leave the car to take a picture in the most dangerous city in the world[1]) --The Photographer 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Daniel. The quality is very good considering you were on the road. --King of ♠ 02:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per below. Great colors, they look almost poserized until you open the pic and see that they are actually true. cart-Talk 10:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kasir (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing new and no change since this 2014 failed nomination under another name.--Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not think it has been a bad nomination as the result of positive votes was 4 times higher than the negative. On the other hand, your comment on "under another name", makes me feel bad like I was hiding something that is quite public in the description of the image and I can't understand how you are able to see this other nomination but you are not able to view the file history of changes showing a selective noise reduction which was a huge job (it was not an automated tool) recently. --The Photographer 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose Bad composition and denoise artefacts -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  strong oppose per Jebulon and Dmitry A. Mottl: denoise artefacts! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done I rebuild the image, please, let me know if the "denoise artefacts" is gone. Thanks --The Photographer 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but not done: this image is still ruined reworked. Take a look to the tree over the red car in your original and the newest version ... I also wrote: per Jebulon! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and I think that the problem is gone (I uploaded another version). IMHO this last version is considerably better that the originally uploaded.  :) --The Photographer 23:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - That may be, and I'm OK with the changes you made, but I think you should ping everyone who already voted and see what they think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since we are heading into another one of these confusing edit wars with tweaking a pic during nomination, I'm withdrawing my vote and sit this one out. cart-Talk 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that it's a valid recomendation and thanks Ikan Kekek for your idea. I'm pinging everybody King of, @INeverCry: , @Johann Jaritz: , @Martin Falbisoner:, @Kasir:, @ArionEstar:, @Jebulon:, @Dmottl:, @Alchemist-hp:. Please, feel free of change your vote if you think that this version is not in line with the version that you voted. --The Photographer 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Per W.carter. INeverCry 07:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: and @W.carter:, This is not a completely different picture, is an alteration of the original photo, just noise reduction and performe small fixes pending a nomination is in line with the spirit of this section provide better quality images to commons and improve our quality as photographers and photo editors. If you are stopping someone improves a photo based on a valid criticism you are curtailing the ability of feedback, learning and improvement provided by this section and I'm not here to accumulate awards, I'm in this section primarily because of those negative votes that help me improve and I love that feedback and This is something that has been happening in the past and more drastic changes in the photos. Please do not limit the learning process. --The Photographer 11:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not stopping you in any way, I'm simply choosing not to vote here due to too much confusion about what version I'm voting on. cart-Talk 11:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll switch to neutral, as an oppose is too harsh. Perhaps I should take a break and re-think my participation here if I'm getting in the way. I knew what I was doing with my Minolta XE7 and Mamiya RB67, but digital photography can be a challenge to understand. My votes and comments aren't very technical here, because I'm not that technically knowledgeable. I usually vote support for what impresses me and oppose for what doesn't. I may not be qualified to vote here. I came here for enjoyment of the images, but that doesn't take voting. I can just look but not touch in future. INeverCry 11:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: Please drop a vote now and then if you feel like it, a good healthy gut feeling about a picture is more vital than all the tech talk. I can keep up with the tech stuff, but I don't think those points have the final say in whether a pic should be FP or not. Btw, speaking of what we use to take the photos, I think you will find the 'Equipment' section on my user page of interest. ;) cart-Talk 19:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Well my camera has 10 years old and it was a gift from a globally locked user. Btw, you don't need have a D800E to became a good photographer, a good photographer need only a insatiable hunger for photographic knowledge and exactly like any wikimaniadict. And more important is be a good person and be polite with others users respect their work and contributions are crucial and I'm not the best example (I am very easy to irritate). --The Photographer 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Oversnow heavy tractor Kharkovchanka.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 18:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Antarctica
  •  Info Oversnow heavy tractor “Kharkovchanka” that was used in Antarctica from 1959 to 2010, a unique historical sample of engineering-technical developments made for exploration of Antarctica. Historic Site or Monument in the Antarctic No. 92. All by Tsy1980 -- Tsy1980 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tsy1980 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is a nice start, but unfortunately the sun is not well handled. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 07:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act1 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1871 Cairo - Gallica - Restored.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 03:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cobeta, Guadalajara, España, 2016-01-05, DD 19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2016 at 03:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •  Info General view of the municipality of Cobeta located in the province of Guadalajara, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. The population of Cobeta is (according to the 2004 census) 108 inhabitants. Note: this picture belongs to the project No municipality in Spain without a photograph. All by me, Poco2 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate  Support - You mean "No municipality in Spain without a photograph". I like the photo, but I wonder what it would have looked like if you had cropped to the right of the building that's cut off. Did you take any wider-angle photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry, Ikan, I meant without photograph, I corrected it. I've uploaded a new version with more image on both sides, but the building on the right is still cropped. I don't know whether I've another version of it. I have only a few RAW files with me. Poco2 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit oversaturated?! but enough wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral pending correction of that leaning tower on the left which has been noted.< Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Support now that that's been done. A landscape that confronts the viewer with what a Spanish winter is and isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: True, I've  corrected it. Poco2 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fine technique and light, but the composition is not at all FP level in my opinion. Especially the right hand side appears rather arbitrary with the cropped buildings and the electrical wires coming down in a distracting way. Wires can be OK if they add to the composition of a photo. In this case they do not for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ezarateesteban 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Slaunger. INeverCry 22:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too ordinary composition for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Laitche, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay talk 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wesel, Zitadelle, Haupttor -- 2016 -- 4340-6.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •  Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- XRay talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice symmetry! Although you are half a metre of centre :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice but little wow, sorry, for composition and lighting. I am aware this kind of light has been chosen on purpose yet I don’t like the facade being entirely in shadow, making the foreground (which already covers almost half of the frame) much brighter than the actual subject of the image, making the latter look dull. Then, it’s rather soft considering what’s possible today (due to f/13 diffraction I fancy). A stitched panorama of this static object, for instance, could have easily been taken as well, giving way more detail and crispness. Und eine einzelne Aufnahme ist per definitionem kein HDR-Bild, auch nicht nach Tonemapping. HDR heißt „mehr als eine einzelne Belichtung an Dynamik zu fassen vermag“. --Kreuzschnabel 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ezarateesteban 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - I like the composition a lot. I like that the cannons are more or less facing toward us, I find that the building being in shadow actually emphasizes it (in somewhat the same way that a listener will really perk up their ears when there is a contrasting soft section in the middle of moderately loud music), and I like the view through the archway in the center of the building. I'm very tempted to support a feature. But what gives me pause is Kreuzschnabel's point about the softness of the focus. To my taste, this is a very good photo in almost every way. In a way, it's like my heart supports a feature but my brain is just not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Love the golden lighting + dark clouds. The lack of illumination on the facade doesn't bother me that much. --King of ♠ 01:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, a bit soft, but that's no dealbreaker here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. The lighting may be golden on the grass but that's not really the subject. I think for a photo like this to rise above QI it needs to have great lighting of the building, or the building more amazing, or far higher resolution/sharpness. We have so many greater building FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support nice perspective, light a bit suboptimal, but still ok for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Alchemist. Gets enough right. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's nice and sharp but with this light, the lawn actually looks more interesting than the building and it has no wow factor for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support My impression is exceptional. --Milseburg (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per opposers. There is too many empty grass/lawn IMO, and I miss something "more" regarding the famous "wow" factor. Sorry. Not a bad picture, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord -- 2016 -- 1253.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
  •  Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- XRay talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 16:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting shapes and good work but I don’t see anything outstanding. If only the nearest arc wasn’t cut by the frame on the right. --Kreuzschnabel 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very interesting and rather unique shape. --King of ♠ 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Qualified support So interesting compositionally (it feels like another album cover for some cool Krautrock group that I've never heard of and would want to hear if they used images like this on their album covers) that it offsets the depth of field that I wish was sharper on the bricks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Interesting and offbeat, and I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice view, but not enough wow, a bit too boring for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent composition. Like the rough industrial look. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this kind of photos must need some impressive element or factor, the only nice composition doesn't deserve FP, imho. --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The kind of picture I like. Excellent composition and light, but sharpness is not enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Хотинська фортеця в місячну ніч.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 07:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created and uploaded by User:Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I just saw this photo at QIC (it was promoted), and I find it poetic and beautiful. I'm also impressed with the photographer's light control. I guess the moon and a bit of its reflection on the water may be a tad blown and posterized and the very tops of the towers are just a bit soft, but they're good enough for me in context, and for a picture in low light conditions, the fact that the fortress is so clear and the stars visible in the sky aren't traily at all is impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Code (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ryzhkov Sergey could you please upload a higher resolution version of this? This appears to be downsized 50% and thus only 9.7MP from 36MP camera. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Where so many attempts like this often fall short, this has succeeded. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure if I want to see how it looks at 36 MP. It is just excellent as it is. Period. --A.Savin 21:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 01:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Mild oppose. The shadows, or whatever it is at the castle has some very strange greenish and wrong color (see annotation). A postprocessing mishap? Otherwise very nice and atmospheric. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very nice however it wants a bit more space on the top. --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay talk 15:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Halavar (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Papilio dravidarum-Kadavoor-2016-07-30-001.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 05:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Here too, I didn't understand. The wings of this butterfly is not even in shades; dark in some area and light in other places. As I mentioned in file description "it (a rare and endemic butterfly) prefers shady patches. The males drink at wet patches especially in the hot dry pre-monsoon days." Here he is drinking from the water collected on leaves; a perfect behavioral documentation. Jee 06:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can really see the drinking taking place, as the butterfly's head is facing away from us. If the butterfly is truly rare, that could be a strong encyclopedic argument for a feature, but I would have thought "endemic" and "rare" were contradictions in terms. Anyway, I don't want you to think I don't appreciate the great and really impressive work you do - it's in large part due to your outstanding work that the bar on featuring closeups of butterflies, moths and the like has been raised! Meanwhile, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No worries. I'm just trying to explain things I learned as part of my hobby in chasing them as AWeith did on his polar bear nom. Thanks for your nice words. Jee 06:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: A contradiction in terms? Would you like him to say it in Malayalam? But maybe you'd be at a slight disadvantage... INeverCry 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] This isn't about someone having an advantage over another person; it's about having clear communication, which was ultimately achieved. Thanks for "helping". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

According to Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world, it is "uncommon; but not known to be threatened". It will not come out of the shades; I saw it only once. Jee 07:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's that rare, I  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ikan Kekek. We've two difficulties to find the exact status. 1. It loves shades and will not come out. 2. It mimics Euploea core. So we can't distinguish them without seeing those two white spots on upper-wings. Jee 07:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood. But even if there are a lot of them, if they're almost always in shade, that presents a major challenge in photographing them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan the word "endemic" when referring to animals and plants, means "native to or confined to a certain region". So not contradictory with "rare". When referring to a disease, it does mean "common within a population", which is probably where the confusion comes. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I never knew there was a difference between the usage of endemic in talking about endemic diseases vs. endemic animals. Thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 08:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per understanding gained from long discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh, unfortunate lighting. --Smial (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Vengolis (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sat 24 Sep → Thu 29 Sep
Sun 25 Sep → Fri 30 Sep
Mon 26 Sep → Sat 01 Oct
Tue 27 Sep → Sun 02 Oct
Wed 28 Sep → Mon 03 Oct
Thu 29 Sep → Tue 04 Oct

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

Tue 20 Sep → Thu 29 Sep
Wed 21 Sep → Fri 30 Sep
Thu 22 Sep → Sat 01 Oct
Fri 23 Sep → Sun 02 Oct
Sat 24 Sep → Mon 03 Oct
Sun 25 Sep → Tue 04 Oct
Mon 26 Sep → Wed 05 Oct
Tue 27 Sep → Thu 06 Oct
Wed 28 Sep → Fri 07 Oct
Thu 29 Sep → Sat 08 Oct

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]] ===
    === [[: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/September 2016), 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/September 2016.
  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.
Read in another language