Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2016

Contents

File:12099 on Severn Valley Railway.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 14:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Cataratas do Iguaçu - Vista de cima.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 23:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Mayravbf - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 23:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - I feel this picture is missing some wow, compared to other photos in the same category, such as [1] (spectacular but a bit noisy), [2] (a fine picture but with less sky than this one) and my favorite: [3]. For my money, the last one is the one we should feature, and in fact, I'll put it in my FPC cue in case no-one nominates it first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Perhaps because of the rainbow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the rainbow makes the pictures more spectacular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support The horizon could be sharper, but on the whole this stands out among waterfall pictures. Moving my support to the edited version below. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

 

  •   Info WB, shadowns, noise, sharpening were altered. --The Photographer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Those edits did it. This version is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The colors are better here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --w.carter-Talk 12:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose this is very explored place to photograph, even us have better photos, sample, in the end of rain season, in a better hour to shoot... This photo is in the dry season, less water, less power, with a longer expose, the cloud could go away, a huge area of pure artefacts (note), and the lack of sharpness let me think that this is just a snapshot, not a FP. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Only a litle note, remember that it's a compact camera (no posible do a long exposition with this camera, for example) --The Photographer (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And the equipment not been adequate, is not a excuse to us classify as a good photo, or give more credited for this. ;) Actually, with technique even me know how to suppress the limitation of using a compact camera to create a long exposure look... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I know this camera and how is difficult create a long exposure, basically you need hack the camera installing another operative system, also the sensor problem that impact the image quality. In this image composition the zoom is irrelevant imho --The Photographer (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Again:
"Canon PowerShot SX40 HS is a superzoom [camera], and have a M mode. (see?}"
"And the equipment not been adequate, is not a excuse to us classify as a good photo, or give more credited for this. ;) Actually, with technique even me know how to suppress the limitation of using a compact camera to create a long exposure look... "-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And I didn't say that we need 30s of exposure, just that a longer exposure could clear the clouds, the image is average to bad. And the editions added a huge amount of artefacts -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Rodrigo. INeverCry 19:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Long exposition version

 

  •   Info Long exposure version is a decompiling of the original version and what could be done in the first moment, thanks to Rodrigo comments. --The Photographer (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't know whether I would have supported this version if it had been the only one offered, but I find the shorter-exposure version clearer and more alive. Both versions have merit, but I don't get what the advantage of this version is supposed to be, and whatever it is, it's lost on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural
The chosen alternative is: File:Cataratas_do_Iguaçu_-_Vista_de_cima_alt.jpg

File:Crested lark singing.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Galite-Galiton 119.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 08:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - In my view, this again is a good Quality Image. I like the photo, but I don't find the motif outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Gentle   Oppose, it is a nice pic but the lack of wow or oooh makes it not an FP for me, sorry. w.carter-Talk 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but not outstanding for me --Kreuzschnabel 12:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hello everybody certainly I will improve my photos thank you for your kind comments --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. A tighter crop, generally being larger and less sharpening (the latter two of which are probably related) might have put this one over the top IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created by Bert Kaufmann - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support the picture was nominated before and deleted per legal issues, but now file was restored per legal considerations changing. -- Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Mesmerizing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing! --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support WoW --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very OOOooooh!! I actually had to triple check that it had the right license since it is one of the more restrictive licenses (CC BY 2.0) but that seems to work. Someone check again just to be sure, please. Also, looking at the place on Google Maps, I can't tell if this place really looks like this or if the pic has been created by mirroring one element twice (which I suspect since all shadows are identical) in which case this should be mentioned in the file description. w.carter-Talk 17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support WOOOOOOHOWWWWW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as it is against the rule: "Digital manipulations .... Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable." --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - What's the manipulation? The blue color or something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The manipulation is that this exact place does not exist. One half of it is how the building looks, the other half is just a mirror image of the place. Like in a kaleidoscope. As an example, I took this image and used the same technique to create this more stunning image. w.carter-Talk 23:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Well, I think it's a great picture, but the description should indicate what manipulation was done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I mentioned it in the file. It can be verified by the tags in Flickr. Tomer T (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should expect everyone to click the Flickr link, so I'm glad you added "This picture uses mirroring" to the English-language description (someone should translate that into French). That having been explained, I have no further objection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The main subject is misrepresented. Therefore it can not be a FP. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The fact that the description now mentions that mirroring is used is sufficient to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can accept the photo as FP such as the guidelines are right now, BUT I also think we should use this photo as a starting point for a more broader discussion at a more proper place on Commons about new categories and guidelines. We will always encounter new things that the site has not been prepared for and I think the site should adapt accordingly. I was recently in a similar discussion about something new that did not quite fit the policy at English Wikipedia In The News when one of the main news was the Pokémon Go mania. No one had anticipated that a pop culture phenomenon could be newsworthy. But it was solved and accepted. w.carter-Talk 09:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support seems fine --Mile (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Winifred Carter.--Jebulon (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well frère J, I haven't opposed it! ;) Don't get me wrong, I'm just as wowed by this image as anyone else, I only want to get all the technicalities and Formal things right before I vote for it. You know all the boring things that have to be right before we can call a pic Featured. One of these is what category this should be in. We promote images of fantasy places in paintings all the time, but should this really be in the /Places/Interiors category? Not everyone are as savvy as we when it comes to image manipulations and someone may see this and want to go and have a look at this amazing place only to find that it does not actually exist. And it can hardly be in the /Non-photographic media/Computer-generated or...? w.carter-Talk 09:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support An interesting and highly artistic approach to a place that deserves more photographic interest now that fop finally seems to be established in Belgium. I've been to that station many times but didn't have time to take pictures yet. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per/Villy Fink Isaksen JukoFF (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • JukoFF, it is mentioned in the file description. Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mirroring image... --Laitche (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice art, but we are here not in a photo community forum. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - What would you say to the argument that a great photo with mirroring is not only beautiful but also educational in showing what can be done with that technique? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 14:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mirroring image... Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, since there is no category in FP for digital experimentation. It is very cool, but apparently FPs should correspond with objects in a more encyclopedic way. w.carter-Talk 16:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Yes, it's very cool. We probably should create categories for this kind of artistic photos, if it is not there already. what pop up in my mind is this picture File:Allébron September 2014.jpg, but it is a long exposed one and not manipulaited. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep, that was just a long exposure of a tram/local train going by. And that place actually exists, bridge railing and all. Funny you should choose a pic of a place where I've lived so I can vouch for the correctness of the view. Problem would probably be that with digital manipulations the possibilities are endless and we would be swamped with "cool" and "cool-wannabe" pictures. As our Alchemist-hp pointed out, this is not what Wikimedia is for. There are plenty of photo sites for that. I vote for this remaining an encyclopedia. And there is already the Category:Digitally manipulated photographs, it's just not linked to FP cats in any way. w.carter-Talk 20:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's entirely proper to discuss the aesthetics of this site, what they are and should be, but it's not correct to call Commons an encyclopedia. This site is a repository of photos for the use of any Wikimedia project and also for per se educational reasons. It is not simply an annex to Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I know that. I oversimplified right here and now only to be brief since this is not the place for such a lengthy discussion. w.carter-Talk 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

*  Oppose Per others.--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Sorry, I can't oppose twice...--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment btw see Commons:Village_pump#Featured_pictures_.28manipolations.29 --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support misrepresentation. Lotje (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Lotje: Funniest reason to support ever :-/ --Kreuzschnabel 11:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Magnus (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 06:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 02:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment So now we got two pics that are photoshop compositions at the FPC, this and this. Both are created from two images put together to create something that doesn't exist, now this one could be on its way to get promoted to FP while the other one is discarded as a "fake". So where is the logic? w.carter-Talk 16:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I stopped asking for logic in here, there are too many emotional votings being given ("ooooh, that’s nice!") without any rational reconsideration. Some voters appear to ask, "do I like it?" instead of, "is it really worthy in every respect to be considered among the very best images we’ve got on Commons?" --Kreuzschnabel 18:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

[[:]], not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 16:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created and uploaded by Philippe Echaroux - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks great but lacks quality. Insufficient DoF, most of the face is unsharp (in fact, only eyebrows and nosetip are sharp). Cutout line visible around the head. --Kreuzschnabel 16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose false focus point and/or DoF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I wasn't sure, but the cutout line that Kreuzschnabel pointed out clinches my opposition to a feature for this portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose what a pity --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel; no forgiving that line no matter how great everything else is. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Sant'Andrea (Mantua) - Dome.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the photo. I haven't been there, so I'll trust you on the colors. A Google Image search results in images that are much grayer, but that just seems to me to be an overall difference in how they took the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Should be perfectly centered, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Personal argument about an unwelcome vote
  •   Comment I was sure you'd say that Jebulon, unfortunately (as you can see here [4]) I can not take a picture with a perfect center because there is a fence, thanks--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Of course, I'm sure there is a good reason for that non-centered image. But not every place is worth a picture, and not every place is worth a Featured Picture.--Jebulon (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment Sure Jebulon but we do not change the subject, what you said? It is not centered ... and I responded to that. Then you should upgrade your opposition to what you really believe and not just "is not centered". Everything else is subjective and surely you would not have responded if I had just written to me (which you did not) I do not like etc.. thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I understand about these fences. Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. Jebulon's right, theoretically, but this picture is too good not to support. It works despite being not perfectly centered. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 14:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support it works for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not centered. And that's really the point of such pictures. - Benh (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Another personal argument about an unwelcome vote
Surprise...a your negative vote. Strange for the Centered Featured pictures. Trust me the point is just another --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Stop focusing on others' opposes behaviour. - Benh (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the opposes I have problems with those who invent the things. When you end I'll finish.--LivioAndronico (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Besides the issues mentioned by the other opposers, it’s certainly overprocessed to me. Looks as if motion blur has been tried to be fixed by sharpening. Fine double contours on all the details. --Kreuzschnabel 07:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


One more personal argument about an unwelcome vote
Sure,sure...--LivioAndronico (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You don’t need to argue. By nominating, you virtually asked me for my opinion about the image, and there it is. Try to say thanks. And pleeeeease try not to take any oppose as a personal insult. --Kreuzschnabel 06:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You must be more calm, I ask an opinion but possibly objective and unspoken things at raaaaaaaaaaaaaaandom. I insulted you? just that you say it is false --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You dind’t at all insult me, and I assure you it takes much more to upset me. I just wonder why you – please excuse for my choice of words – seem to feel so pissed off any time someone opposes your nominations. Nobody else in here behaves that way (except Spurzem from time to time). If you plan to keep others from opposing: Won’t work at all. --Kreuzschnabel 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not want to upset you and do not care. Simply you tell falsehoods, the others, in fact, do not share. That's all. p.s. Spurzem is a good guy--LivioAndronico (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure he’s a good guy, I never said nor meant he wasn’t. He just shares your habit of going spare on any opposing vote. And I am expressing my personal opinion, which is just an opinion. Please keep from tagging it as "false", since your personal taste is not a general standard of wrong or right. It would be false if I wrote things I do not really think, but I don’t. --Kreuzschnabel 12:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If a photo is "certainly overprocessed" isn't a opinion but you say it as if it were a certainty....but is false! --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do us all a favour and look up the meaning of to me in your favourite dictionary. Thank you. --Kreuzschnabel 21:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Surely after that you will do a favor to all and you will find your vocabulary the term objective. Thanks. --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  Comment You asked for an example of inappropriate behavior by you? This subthread is an obvious one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure and you tell me Ikan Kekek how many people approve this comment? You know how many times I've had comments so always false by the same people? This photo is definitely overprocessed? Ok Since it is "safe" why nobody approve? But please .... seriously!--LivioAndronico (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in debating minutiae with you. I merely observe that your behavior is bad, and if you want me to, I will point out every time you engage in behavior I consider bad, and that would cause you to be suspended if you did it on Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not care your opinion, here we are on the commons, for me the way you do it is painful, we have to do? Differences of thought! If you haven't interest,don't do...simple --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Betty Friedan 1960.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 16:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Fred Palumbo - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good job with another photo of a historically important woman, at the time when she most gained her fame. I wish it didn't have the flash shadow, but there's only so much you can do, and frankly that just came with toning down the blown background. I also love the very contemporary expression on her face, like she wouldn't a mind a cigarette, a drink or preferably both after the photographer's done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Daniel said it best. It's great that you've been doing such a service by restoring and nominating pictures of historically important women. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek: Expect that trend to continue for some time. At the moment, I have twelve photos of important women in the queue to nominate once a space opens up. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --w.carter-Talk 22:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support for historical reasons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't see why this would be among "our fines images". The hard shadow on the wall behind her, the cut hand … To me it looks like something in-between a planned shooting and a casual snapshot, it lacks something special. In other words: No "WOW" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Without knowing her, the photo gives no indication of her activities and is ordinary in all other aspects. IMO not outstanding enough to be featurable. --DXR (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The description gives a link to the Wikipedia article about her and describes her as an "American feminist and writer". If you don't know who she was, I suggest you read the linked Wikipedia article to start with. She was a very important feminist writer and was highly visible in the media in the U.S., to the point that her name would be one of the first that someone, or at least someone around my age (51) or older would mention if asked to name feminist leaders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I looked her up and of course, she is notable. But frankly the argument, look her up to see her notability defeats the point of a Commons FP. This is a bland photo of a woman, who happens to be important. That may be a very good justification for an enwiki feature. Equivalently, I would not support a feature of a boring picture of some house somewhere, in which something important happened. I expect something more from the picture itself, something which is there here, for example. --DXR (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I appreciate your argument. It makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Maybe some value although I did not know her (not a criteria of course, even for a 56 years old fellow here), but the quality of the picture is not excellent IMO (harsh shadow for instance).--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per/Jebulon JukoFF (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose good work, but not featured for me: the countenance isn't ok for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 18:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Locatie, Lendevallei. Petgat 04.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 13:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created and uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's no secret that I love Dominicus' sensibility, and I think this photo with its wonderful reflections and gradations of light, reminiscent of Netherlandish landscape painting of yesteryear, is a great work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: ArionEstar are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

*  Support See comment below. Mmmm... When is the next flight to this place leaving? :) w.carter-Talk 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Qualified support Lovely composition; clouds at upper right are a little overxposed ... this may be fixable. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: Daniel Case are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Famberhorst: Yes; if I werern't I would have changed my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Small correction. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment - It actually might be too dark now; I'd split the difference. However, I would understand that your priority would be to address the concerns about the colors below. I don't see the problem - the colors look real to me. But that's beside the point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment It seems far too yellow for an image taken in the middle of the day. Are the colors ok? Kruusamägi (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: Kruusamägi are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Yes, that is better. Not enough wow for me to support the nomination but I see no reason to oppose. That's a fine image. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment for me too --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: LivioAndronico are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Slightly less yellow. Could possibly turn back to the first version.

  •   Comment - I'm perfectly happy with this version, and I actually consider it the best of the three, providing that the colors are now accurate. You really should ping everyone, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a "ping" template, but I would just put their usernames here, like so: Arion, W.carter, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Kruusamägi and LivioAndronico, are you OK with the new version of this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info The new version is fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Totally ok with me. And to add: 'Ping' is a Wiki-slang/jargong for the notice you get when another user mentions you on a page, other than your own, to get your attention like Ikan just did here. This is necessary when you alter an image during review so those who have already voted can say if they approve the new version as well. (There is a discussion about this on the talk page.) w.carter-Talk 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very average image of nothing. Could be any puddle with any grass, in a very normal day... nothing wow, special... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahem... it doesn't hurt to be polite even when you oppose to something. w.carter-Talk 16:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I see nothing impolite in the statement. And I feel quite the same (it’s a nice picture, a bit soft and noisy, some grass blades pixelated on the right side, I suspect oversharpening – all in all I don’t see an outstanding piece of photographic art here) but that has become quite normal. On FPC, we used to consider, "is this really one of the very best images on Commons?", now it seems to be rather "well, it’s not too bad, so I’ll support it" for many voters. Well, if this is the direction things develop here, I know I am free to leave. It’s just the FP star rapidly losing its meaning for me. --Kreuzschnabel 19:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Different people respond differently to different photos. For example, there is a core constituency for macro photos with bokeh. I like some of them but have a lot less tolerance for unsharpness and especially vertiginous backgrounds than others. That doesn't make pictures I oppose "nothing" or cause the star to lose its meaning because others like photos I oppose. And some viewers don't respond to this kind of landscape photo the way I do. It sucks when, as has often happened, the photographer takes offense at opposition per se and posts petulant remarks, but I do think we should all, while expressing our opinions, try to be polite, and I realize there are cultural differences, as New Yorkers tend to be blunter than people from many other parts of the U.S. and my experience so far has been that Germans are much blunter than New Yorkers (not to mention French people, for whom etiquette tends to be quite important). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • W.carter hurt? I just presented that this is a photo of "nothing" per dictionary "not anything", do not have a subject, and I reinforce this idea to made clear. Don't make this a soup opera. Peace. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No intention whatsoever to make this into a soap opera. Just have in mind that this is an international site and words and meanings are interpreted differently in different cultures so we all have to be very careful. A lot of peace to you too. w.carter-Talk 21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Sure Famberhorst (ping  ) --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 100% with Kreuzschnabel, even if Rodrigo maybe forgot that there is a person who took the picture...--Jebulon (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And I think this nomination has supported to many transformations since the beginning of the evaluation process, per the debate mentionned above.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • A person who took a photo of nothing. Don't have a focal point, a subject, don't make a storm in a glass of water. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jebulon. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   OpposeThis is not any of the original two versions I voted for. It has lost some of its fairy tale glow and become a more ordinary photo for me. Even if I liked this version I would withdraw my support just because of all the significant changes being done with the photo during the voting process. It is simply too confusing. w.carter-Talk 21:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 19:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    06:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see a nice image but nothing outstanding here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good illustration of a biome; nice composition and so on. The wow for me comes mainly from the clouds. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but mid-day light isn't appealing. And photo is a bit overprocessed (plants are looking unnatural on the background). --Ivar (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik ja härjatall.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 18:04:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Iifar - uploaded by Iifar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The reflection is not perfect, looks like it was a windy moment when the picture was taken. The whole picture looks somewhat overexposed, too. The light situation is not that interesting and the colours are very pale. In other words: No wow. --Code (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I respect this picture and feel a little like a stinker for opposing it. My reasons are different from Code's: I feel like there's too much water in the picture, and from this viewer's point of view, I feel like I'm sort of drowning in it, maybe partly because of the angle. I'd like the photo a lot more and might very well support it if it were cropped to just in front of the reflection of the building on the right, because I like the sky and would feel like that's the right amount of water. I admit that this isn't fully thought through and might not be a completely logical point of view, but it's more substantive than if I just wrote "no wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral To quote another good Wikipedian: "Meh..." --w.carter-Talk 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
*@W.carter: Wouldn't en:Meh automatically mean oppose because "no wow"? ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
*Not by default, since it could also include a bit of uncertainty about the tech quality which has very little to do with the wow-factor. :-P w.carter-Talk 10:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 19:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted (the chimney and its reflection do not align vertically, so either the water surface or the camera are slanted) --Kreuzschnabel 07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 02:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Holy Trinity Cathedral - Niš.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 11:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MrPanyGoff 11:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment fix the FPC category Ezarateesteban 23:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - That's a really good example of good photography. Congratulations! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Small but that's not a problem for this image. Nice symmetry and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the symmetry quite boring, and I do not like the crop left and right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I find the symmetry beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support In this case I find the symmetry correct --Llez (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as for symmetry, both towers should be in bright light. And this sky is very dark and weird. And as for educational purpose, we don't have scale. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI, yes. But I have personaly dozens of such pictures of similar views to submit here... This is not original neither outstanding. For those who don't know, FP reviewers are kindly requested to review some quality image candidates, then they could see the difference, and what is expected here in FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That request is certainly well taken. However, I do look at QIC quite regularly. We simply have a difference in taste. I'd like to see the dozens of similar photos you've taken. Perhaps I'd find them more appealing than other photos that have been featured. And so be it. Differences in opinion make things much more interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 19:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 02:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lac de Tunis Sud 19.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 07:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 02:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Rocks at Bodega Head on a foggy morning.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 01:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Полярное сияние.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2016 at 21:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of what's mentioned above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Momento Espacial II.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 22:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created and uploaded by Elias Andréo Gimenes - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support "Just a sunrise", but I like the sun's way of trying to fit in this composition. Tones and shapes make this photo look like a painting. A good example of using the rule of thirds too. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice snap but not a great picture, in my opinion. Most of the picture just sits there and looks very flat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Arion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly a good pic, but I find it hard to be wowed by one of thousands of look-alike almost monochrome images of sunrises/sunsets. w.carter-Talk 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Nice mood but too much unnecessary space. --Laitche (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice. the photo need this space, good seen --Ralf Roleček 06:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Laitche. Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. INeverCry 06:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This actually a bad sample of how to use a rule of thirds. Plus, bad name, bad description, not a relevant as a educational media, for me, not even QI in Wikimedia Commons, community based in educational bias. (funny photo in WLE, but of place not listed in the contest, a photo of farm). -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 21:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:16-07-06-Rathaus Graz Turmblick-RR2 0291.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 22:11:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info View from the spire Rathaus Graz; Beavertail roof - all by me. -- Ralf Roleček 22:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Of course the roofs are pretty, but I don't find the motif interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice idea but not executed all the way. A more "just roofs"-pic would have been better. Now you give away the surprise directly by showing too much façades. I did a cropped version, but seeing all the tricky licenses and other things on the file's page, I dared not upload it. :-} Instead I left a friendly and easy-to-remove crop-suggestion-note. Hope that's ok. w.carter-Talk 07:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@all: This nomination is gone, ok. But its interesting to me to read your opinions. I see my photos different then you. And i can learn, thanks. The crop-suggestion is good. I have see this as civil-ingeneer and second as photographer ;) --Ralf Roleček 20:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ralf Roletschek: If you want to withdraw your nomination you have to add the *{{Withdraw}} template to the nomination page. Looking forward to your next nomination. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I find it very nice. Tomer T (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending possible crop suggested by W. carter. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 15:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Maison - 20150810 15h22 (11060).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 02:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 02:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 02:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scene but I don’t get the message, and I don’t see a clear composition. What’s special here? --Kreuzschnabel 05:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 06:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I think the idea is that the composition itself is the point. It's quite good, but doesn't quite reach FP level for me. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's partly the cropped tree to the left of the house. I kind of wish I could vote to feature it, but I don't feel able to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It does resemble a 19th century impressionism painting (only thing lacking is some water lilies), but for FP it's not sharp enough and the light is a bit too flat. w.carter-Talk 10:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know the place very well, as the Marais poitevin (Marais poitevin) ("Grand site de France") is not very far from my native city, and this place and house are very typical and localy well known. It is worth a visit, with a traditional boat. Yes it looks "impressionist", but unfortunately, the light comes from the wrong direction and the facade is in shadow.--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jebulon, and color kind of washed-out looking. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2015 Bazylika w Wambierzycach 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2016 at 14:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Wadi Al Hitan1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 07:49:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Clr202 - uploaded by Ori~ - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fascinating and good quality. I was interested and had a look at w:Dorudon. I think I'll link that article in the English-language description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool and unusual pic. Reminds me of this. w.carter-Talk 11:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The skeleton looks great, but the empty space in the left corner and the big bank of dirt with shadow at top don't help the composition overall. INeverCry 18:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I half expect to see C-3P0 walking up on the side and spotting the Jawa sandcrawler, I agree with INC that the composition isn't wowing enough. Also it's a little unsharp and perhaps posterized in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good image. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:16-03-30-Jerusalem Mishkenot Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7637.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 22:42:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Sculpture at Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem - all by me-- Ralf Roleček 22:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 22:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice reflection of you. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice picture, except that the sky and its reflection are noisy enough to bug me at full size. Can you denoise more? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support w.carter-Talk 13:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for some little yet serious problems: 1. the distracting streetlamp ought at least to be cloned out. Could have been avoided by a slightly lower camera position. 2. Picture is noisy (sky and sky reflection) and oversharpened (e.g. edges of the bush on the right). 3. I find the composition a bit irritating, I’ve got no idea what size that sphere is and what’s the distance from it – I reckon the camera’s rather close to it. I’d prefer a more distant shot at a standard focal length to get a better feeling of dimensions, never having seen it for real. That’s a matter of taste of course, it just keeps the wow off me. --Kreuzschnabel 14:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC) – Vote changed to   Neutral, I’m still not quite sold on this one but no reason to keep it from a feature. --Kreuzschnabel 06:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree that the street lamp could take a hike, but I don't have any problem with size definition since there are three spotlights at the base as reference points. w.carter-Talk 15:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, although +1 to losing the lamp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ok, i have denoised the blue parts a bit and the lamp is saw off. --Ralf Roleček 20:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yay! Go digi-vandals! ;) w.carter-Talk 21:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   CommentSomething went wrong with the edit, the part where the lamp was is now considerably noisier than its surrounding. I reckon the cloned area wasn’t selected for the denoise. Won’t look fine in a print this way. Would you fix it? --Kreuzschnabel 06:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ich habe das nicht mit Auswahl gemacht sondern auf einer Smartebene mit Pinsel und verschiedenen Deckkräften. Bin noch mal drüber. --Ralf Roleček 15:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you for denoising. I feel like this photo is worthy of a feature now, partly because what's depicted is quite interesting, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice self portrait. ;-) --XRay talk 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Canário do campo.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 10:17:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I normally don't comment on bird photos since I know zip about bird photography, but this very lucky shot reminds me too much of traditional Chinese bird paintings like this to be ignored. Really nice! w.carter-Talk 11:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree. I really like this photo, and appreciate that the grasses as well as the bird - including its tail feathers - are clear. The slight softness of the head is no big deal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this. A lot. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kreuzschnabel 15:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 17:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice composition but the focus is on the tail not head. --Laitche (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   weak support Per above --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support If it were me I might have cropped to a square ... but this bokeh is so sublime and pleasing that I enthusiastically defer to the photographer's choice here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 02:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Daurian redstart (female) in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016 V.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 18:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:George Charles Beresford - Virginia Woolf in 1902 - Restoration.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 21:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People
The chosen alternative is: File:George_Charles_Beresford_-_Virginia_Woolf_in_1902_-_Restoration.jpg

File:Männikjärve raba vana laudtee.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 21:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 21:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good, but not special enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Special for me. Compostion, light and mood are impressive. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colours are nice, I like the contrast of green and purple even in dull lighting. But the image appears to have suffered from severe noise reduction, then tried to re-sharpen (foreground grass blades look oversharpened to me while most parts are still soft and lack detail). As for composition, I’d have taken a viewpoint more to the right to get the boardwalk(?) more diagonally into the frame instead of having it run straight away from the viewer. --Kreuzschnabel 07:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 06:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose A place with lots of potential, but somehow I feel this wasn't the right moment for photographing it. This would probably look gorgeous under a blue sky or in light morning mist around sunrise or with heavy mysterious fog or maybe even in pouring rain. Don't get me wrong: the dull mood fits the scene, but somehow it's not dull enough to make me go "wow!". Also I think a slightly lower angle might work better (not a reason to oppose, though). --El Grafo (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Terrasse Taisho - Les saveurs du Japon mises à l'honneur.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 04:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •   Info created by Web-master77 - uploaded by Web-master77 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    06:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, for me this is far from being one of the very finest images on Commons. As for composition: too much space on left but the napkin cut off on the right, the far plate is partly covered by an entirely unsharp glass of juice, arrangement looks random. As for quality: Large parts of the dish are unsharp (bottom dish show some motion blur as well), insufficient DoF. --Kreuzschnabel 07:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The unsharp orange glass and very bright knife and fork spoils it for me. Would have been better on a non-glass table as well. w.carter-Talk 08:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I don't think this could pass at Quality Image Candidates, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per W.carter. -- Zcebeci (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per W.carter. INeverCry 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but the composition doesn't work for me. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see what the photographer was thinking, again, but the background's too busy, and the crop in the napkin could have been avoided. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Камениот мост во Зовиќ.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 23:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Others may have detailed criticisms, but for me, this is beautiful. Only one criticism from me: I might prefer if the tree on the left weren't cut off. But so be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan Kekek. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    05:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cut-off trees and building spoil it for me. Nice place, certainly, but this framing is not the best one can get. --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very lovely place but at least the right tree could have been spared a cutting, and maybe loose the person on the bridge. w.carter-Talk 08:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Kreuzschnabel, W.carter: The only way to take this image is to stand on a rock in the river and there is not much choice on the angle and the arrangement of objects. The ideal view without cropping the tree wold have been possible if the photographer was standing in the river, while it is not possible to eliminate the object to the right because it will spoil the view of the bridge. I agree about the man standing on the bridge (though it does not seem to change too much) but the other things are simply as they are. Here is a view from the bridge to the side of the river where the image was taken from.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Or perhaps turn the camera 90 degrees and take a 4:3 standing pic. Anyway, here at the FPC all photographers are asked to do the impossible such as walk on water, hover in the air or go through locked iron fences. That's standard. ;) w.carter-Talk 09:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Or choose a shorter focal length. Anyway, we judge images as they are nominated without taking the circumstances into account. Sometimes it’s just not possible to take an FP :-) --Kreuzschnabel 19:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. INeverCry 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Just borderline on the saturation, and after all that might just be a natural event. But ... I agree with others about the cut tree. I can see that the photographer wanted to include the bend in the stream, but it didn't work. Either frame the image to include the whole tree or crop out the left third so that we would only expect to see the part of the tree that we would be seeing. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Complejo San Francisco, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 79-81 HDR.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 09:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Night view of the religious complex of San Francisco, Historic Centre of Arequipa, Peru. The complex, founded in 1552 and of mixed style, consists of a Franciscan church, a convent and a minor temple known as the Third Order. Its simple but robust construction made possible that it conserves very good for over 400 years in spite of the frequent earthquakes. Poco2 09:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 09:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question It's a really good photo and the two guys with their bottle are part of the composition, perfectly positioned under the doorway btw, but is it possible to remove three or four of the other rubbish (can, mugs, cig pack, bottle cap)? w.carter-Talk 11:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    W.carter, I've edited it and uploaded a new version, but I don't feel 100% comfortable about this kind of edits. As it was a Sunday night I assume that it was dirtier than otherwise and that's why I guess it's ok. Poco2 12:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Dearest Poco, it really was just a question not a command, hence the 'question'-template. :) Any good reason for not doing the edit, such as the one you provided above (authenticity), would have been legitimate and acceptable. If you don't want to alter a pic, just say so. I think most editors here would agree, if the reason was solid. Anyway:
  Support   --w.carter-Talk 14:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 18:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Imo, the composition is uncomfortably tight at the bottom. Was that intentional or did you run out of space? --DXR (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    DXR: I couldn't go further back as there was a road with a lot of traffic. Otherwise I'd had looked for a futher position. There were also some cars parked around the place, so, I didn't have that freedom. I could though offer a more generous crop at the bottom but the stairs will still be cut off and I'd also lose a bit on both sides. Poco2 20:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I see. It's a bit unfortunate. --DXR (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Reguyla (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't know, but the composition just doesn't work for me. The black sky and the rather ugly fence don't help either. Sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition doesn't work for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 06:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Bombus terrestris queen - Tilia cordata - Keila.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 05:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera

File:Ceriagrion cerinorubellum-Kadavoor-2016-04-11-002.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 03:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info Prior to copulation, male odonates transfer sperm from the genital pore on abdominal segment 9 to the accessory genitalia on segment 2 (intra-male sperm translocation), a type of behavior peculiar to this order of insects. Males may transfer the sperm to their secondary genitalia either before a female is held, in the early stage when the female is held by the legs or after the female is held between the terminal claspers. Most damselflies do it just after grasping the female in tandem as shown here. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jkadavoor -- Jee 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 05:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support for great educational and encyclopedic value. Although I wish the picture could be clearer, it's still really good timing (and/or great patience) and a great moment captured by the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thorough review. I too wish if it could be better and if I can cover the entire subject inline. But there were a lot of challenges: 1. Though the damselflies are much friendly while mating, they are not so friendly until a wheel posture is established. So we photographers patiently wait till then. Here I broke that rule as I had many wheel posture of these damselflies earlier. I've nothing to loose than one single chance even if they get disturbed and fly away. 2. There is lot of motion as the male is applying a lot of force to bend/lift his abdomen, still carrying the female. 3. This (the transfer or charging the secondary genitalia) lasts only seconds and soon they advance to the wheel position. 4. There were foliage between the lens and subject, and I just found a view even if it was not fully inline. :) Jee 06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood, and thanks for recounting that, which makes it more impressive that you were able to capture this moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    06:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support While I'm normally not wowed by photos of insects/bugs/etc.(please forgive the bad terminology), I think that capturing such a brief event, the photo has good educational value. w.carter-Talk 07:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly most interesting and VI for sure but the composition (plenty of space on top but bottom insect cut off) and lighting lacks photographic excellence for me. I am aware this is not a studio shot and there was no time to choose better light and/or framing, but then we judge the result, not the circumstances. --Kreuzschnabel 12:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I just made a google search and found one image available. Uploaded. Jee 13:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And where did you find a notice saying that that new pic was in Public Space and totally copyright free? I can't find one so please direct me to the right place. w.carter-Talk 16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In the source, expand "author and article information". It is mentions in terms to as the entire site is CCAL. Jee 16:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:INS Viraat (R22) Malabar 07.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 04:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Stephen W. Rowe - uploaded by Chanakyathegreat~commonswiki - nominated by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 04:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 04:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This photo is a little small for FPC. It dates from 2007, which isn't old enough to really be considered a historical photo, normally. And the photo itself doesn't strike me as especially outstanding, though it was certainly good for 2007. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, and I don’t find the composition extraordinarily striking either. --Kreuzschnabel 06:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. INeverCry 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The US military is one of Commons' greatest contributors of good and cool quality pictures, there are much better pics than this now. w.carter-Talk 09:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, just a well-taken aerial picture of a carrier, nothing more. No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Sentry box shadow lamp Christiansborg Copenhagen Denmark.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2016 at 22:01:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support at Christiansborg palace, Copenhagen, Denmark. -- Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Fun but doesn't really wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 05:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I can't help but like it! It is refreshingly unassuming and simple, but them again I like my photos not too complicated. w.carter-Talk 07:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I see the nice idea behind this but am not quite sold yet on it. Lighting a bit harsh, the whites nearly blown and poor in detail. Maybe gradient curves drawn too steep in postprocessing? --Kreuzschnabel 12:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For me work --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An interesting image, but not striking enough to be an FP. Also, light seems a little harsh and that robs it of some color. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't understand these criticisms about a so-called "harsh light" or so. I did not (and I shall not) post process this winter evening nordic light, because it was so. There is no overexposure, and there is no loss of details, even in the whites. Of course opinions about striking or not are understandable for me (i.e. the famous "no wow" and variations around it), but I'm sorry to disagree about the light, which was excellent enough to provide a very detailed shadow... My only post-processing here was for the verticals (of the wall: the sentry box is leaning for real, which I found interesting). Thanks any way to all for comments and votes !--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice idea. --Ralf Roleček 06:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Поглед на Скочивирска Клисура.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 18:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:2015 Ribblehead Viaduct 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 12:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info all by -- Kreuzschnabel 12:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Ribble Head Viaduct, Yorkshire Dales, England. I had in mind to just look for a good point of view but once I was there halfway up Whernside, the light became fascinating miraculous, changing rapidly. Unfortunately, I couldn’t catch an instant with both the viaduct being sunlit and a train running over it. Still, I think it’s a very good image of the structure and its surrounding. --Kreuzschnabel 12:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kreuzschnabel 12:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Sky is a bit light but I can live with that, always tricky to get the right light on a wide vista with the clouds moving about. I also like the way the arches of the viaduct sort of "mirror" the bluff. This photo's got more curves than Mae West! ;) w.carter-Talk 12:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad DoF (2,8) and what are all those white dots on the mountains? not good quality and bad light. Low Wow for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the viaduct, but the glary light in the sky and distant ridge unfortunately spoils it for me, and since that ridge is such an important part of the picture, I don't think cropping it out would be a good idea. I hope you have a chance to take photos of this view again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I have little hope to catch that kind of lighting again, and the viewpoint is accessible per foot only so you cannot just pop up there to take a photo when it seems suitable --Kreuzschnabel 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • And as someone said earlier: "Anyway, we judge images as they are nominated without taking the circumstances into account." w.carter-Talk 09:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
        • "I don’t give a damn about the silly babble I uttered yesterday" (w:Konrad Adenauer) ;-) Really, I appreciate all of your comments on either side, the more as I am quite aware this image is not perfect. --Kreuzschnabel 19:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Just to set things straight : f/2,8 doesn't necessarily mean "Bad DoF". Depending on the subject, everything may (or not) fall into "focal plane" (or close enough to it, so that it doesn't appear out of focus). To me everything is in focus here. - Benh (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Info Distance to viaduct approx. 1.8 km. Maximum aperture of lens is f/1.8, maximum resulution about f/2.8, hyperfocal distance at settings given (calculatory) about 130 m. --Kreuzschnabel 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive light. --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see anything too wrong with it, and it's a great landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 06:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment More technical observation than a judgement on featurability, but the image looks quite strange at 100%, especially the stone wall and shrubs in the lower third. ISO 200 should not require much denoising, yet it looks a bit like denoised and resharpened. Looks like good camera and good lens, so is it the raw converter? --DXR (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose absolute wrong colors: saturation or what else ... candy colors?!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all your critical comments which made me think another time, and I came to the conclusion you are right about the technical quality. This has been done by RawTherapee of the raw image file, yet I somehow overdid it. I’ll re-nominate another version derived from the JPG out-of-camera. --Kreuzschnabel 07:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:View from Skaftafell National Park July 2014 -3.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 05:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Impression of Mordor Skeiðarársandur, Iceland. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 06:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good (right DoF)--LivioAndronico (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great! Really impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Oh yesss, my Precious! This is the kind of dramatic landscape you'd expect from an Icelandic vista. w.carter-Talk 10:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Impressive view but the body of water is a bit awkwardly placed IMO. It takes up half of the horizontal space and doesn't go down to the bottom edge, which makes it too large to be a peripheral part of the composition and too small to dominate the scene. A rule of thirds would have been better here, but even covering slightly more vertical space would have been an improvement. --King of ♠ 04:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose per KoH too. That’s what I was thinking on the first glance. The composition is somewhat unbalanced: virtually nothing on the right half, the water surface on the left is soo dominating but then it’s cut off. Does not work as a whole in itself, if you know what I mean, looks like a random framing taken out of a fascinating scenery. It does strike me and make me want to go there and see for myself, but rather for finding a better framing than for the very image as such. Strange :-) --Kreuzschnabel 06:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination The nays have it - because they're right! Thanks for all your comments. I'll upload and nominate an alternative that tries to address the issues mentioned. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Beeld van Heilige Christoffel in Broekhuizen (Horst aan de Maas) in provincie Limburg in Nederland 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 05:52:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created and uploaded by User:Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- The lighting really makes this look like an execution scene, reminiscent at least in mood of some classic Crucifixion paintings or perhaps a lynching victim hung in a tree. I find the picture moving. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It’s a nice idea and moving, right, but apart from the saint being mostly in shadow, I find the resolution too low on the main object to be featured (95 percent of the not-too-many-anyway pixels have been sold on surrounding), and it looks oversharpened (overdone edges). --Kreuzschnabel 06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I have no argument to make on technical matters, so I wouldn't at all suggest for you to change your vote. However, I really resist the notion that a photo in which a statue is the key point of it has to have a disproportionate amount of space taken up by the statue. As is often the case in landscapes that include a particular focus, the subject really is the statue within the landscape, and the larger point is the way the light and surroundings give the sculpture meaning. And to me, the statue being in shadow is perfect for making a poetic statement about its meaning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - here are a couple of examples of crucifixion scenes by Pieter Breughel the Younger. What percentage of the picture frame is devoted to Christ on the Cross? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I didn’t make my point clear enough. The composition is fine for me, just the altogether resolution leaves too few pixels for the main object. If this had 16 or 20 megapixels it would be fine. At this low resolution on the main object, the sharpening effects are too harsh for me. --Kreuzschnabel 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - OK, that's a perfectly sensible point of view. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 07:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I hear you, Kreuzschnabel, but mood and composition are just too good not to support. -- Martin Falbisoner 08:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the low res bothers me too much, it makes the statue, pole and plants look slightly artificial at full size. w.carter-Talk 08:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technical issues aside, I don't think the composition works. The horizontals don't work well with the the strong vertical of the subject. Perhaps something tighter on the statue might have worked? Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - In what way does the composition not work for you? I don't really understand what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: As I said, there are very strong horizontals in this image, given a sense of motion by being mostly from a river and clouds. And in the middle of them is this vertical pillar and statue, like a limb fallen into the river. The effect to me is more disruptive than dynamic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your explaining, because that's not something I think of when looking at visual art. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I have to say, I think people are focusing so much on the trees that they're missing the forest, and it's frustrating for me that I see what I consider great art, a composition that really moves me, and most of you are meh about it. I've been on the other side of this in other nominations, but I'm truly surprised by the opposition to this. And it's not that I'm saying you lack reasons: obviously, you do and have given them. But what about the poetry and the meaning? That's not enough? Is this truly so low-quality technically that you can't look at this and see something that speaks to you in an intense way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I can’t help remembering that someone in here made a remark some time ago going like, "Different people respond differently to different photos" ;-) --Kreuzschnabel 10:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment - Of course. But that doesn't mean I can't be frustrated, and the amount of opposition is very surprising to me. I frankly didn't really anticipate any reason for opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support In this case the result surpass the qualities issues, at least for me. Visually very successful, could be the cover of something... Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was to support, because I find this picture beautiful in many aspects: light, composition, subject, mood... But the sharpening white line around the whole main subject, even visible at thumbnail, is a no-go for me. I'm sorry .--Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see the sharpening line and would never have nominated the photo if I could see it, but I did notice several small dust spots above the sculpture's arm this time. I'm going to withdraw, because obviously, this photo has no chance of being featured. I guess my eye for technical issues still needs a lot more development, even if I end up feeling the same way about photographs' overall quality as works of art in the end. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)   I withdraw my nomination

File:Coruja-listrada (Strix hylophila) no Parque Estadual Intervales.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 00:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Nortondefeis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the owl's eyes, but the bird is not quite sharp enough for me, and mainly, I don't like the rest of the composition for the most part, as I find that it's not really conducive to moving my eyes around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Kreuzschnabel 06:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it has a kind of "deer-in-headlights" (or in this case "owl") look to it which I don't find appealing. w.carter-Talk 09:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Red-eye effect? --Laitche (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

File:St-Etienne-du-Mont Exterior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 05:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created and uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'll be surprised if this is controversial: A beautiful church exterior by D. Iliff plus an excellent, unnoisy sky. The crops are fairly close on both sides because of the location of the church among other buildings on the place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unusually for a Diliff, this composition doesn’t wow me. Quality is excellent of course but the busy foreground, which can’t be helped and is not the photographer’s fault, still keeps the wow off me. And I don’t find the shadows appealing. --Kreuzschnabel 06:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 20:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support And not only because it is my own parish church... Such a picture of this church is very difficult to take, and the result is very good for me (foreground not busy at all...)--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks Jebulon. I agree with you, it's quite difficult to take a better image (maybe possible to have better lighting though) because of the parked cars in the street. As I said to Ikan below, I took this while standing on the Pantheon fence to get enough elevation to avoid the parked cars. And of course waited patiently for traffic to disappear from view. :-) With more visits and planning for the ideal lighting, it could be improved further but the angle and perspective of this image is probably close to ideal. A single straight frontal view will introduce too much distortion because you would need to get too close to the building in my opinion. Diliff (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to distortion at top, which I realize may be a byproduct of perspective correction, but it's still present. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice the distortion and still would have to have it spelled out to me for me to see it. But since this picture obviously isn't going to get the votes for a feature,   I withdraw my nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the nomination anyway. I agree it's probably not quite at the FP level. The distortion is largely unavoidable though - most European churches are surrounded by nearby buildings and it makes getting the spire in shot impossible without significant distortion. I don't actually think the distortion is that bad in this image however, as I managed to get quite far back. It's less aesthetic though because of the off-centre composition, which the angle of the street required. I took the photo while standing on the fence of the Pantheon to avoid parked cars obscuring the view of the church. Exterior views are always tricky compromises with the environment. If you think the distortion on this one is bad, have a look at this one. :-) It's not possible to get any further back than this without a tree and office building obscuring the cathedral, but the tower is so tall (it's 87 metres tall and I think it's probably only possible to get 30-40 metres back from the front of the building so the angle to the top of the tower is 65 to 70 degrees) that it ends up being pretty disfigured by distortion. Diliff (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Пълнолуние над Рила.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 14:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Argortedil - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose fake --The Photographer (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose fake --Laitche (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This pic just got declined, and not in a good way, at QI. I don't know why you thought it would go better here.
    On another note: This is strictly speaking a photoshop composition of two pics, like this one was. The question is again if we should have a category for all these digital manipulations or just dismiss them as the rules says now. w.carter-Talk 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fake. And all the perspective corrections distortions are manipulations too. --Ralf Roleček 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can't believe that this fake picture won the 1st prize in the national contest of Bulgaria in Wiki Loves Earth 2016 --The Photographer (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lahemaa mustikad.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 17:44:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info created and uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The path to a Swede's heart goes through bilberries... Nice photo too, or more accurately, having picked buckets of them I see this as an extremely good representation of the berries. :) w.carter-Talk 18:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI for sure but not special enough to feature IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 18:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 20:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm getting hungry when watching this photograph. Therefore: Thumbs up. --JB aus Siegen (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2016
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the main: the fruit is unsharp. No other reasons for FP available. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not a FP to me. Composition is uninteresting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tpp many distracting unsharp leaves. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I still consider it a great image and well worthy of FP star. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Панорама од археолошките ископини во Тауресиум 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 11:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Tauresium is an archaeological site located 20 km southeast from Skopje. It is the birthplace of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I and the Ostrogothic King Theodahad. Created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - You've definitely established the importance of the ruins, and photo looks to me to be of good technical quality except for the water spot (? oval-shaped) I found near the upper right corner, and the sky is very nice and much less noisy than in many photos we see here. However, the composition doesn't grab me and the crop on the left feels arbitrary to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ruins well depicted, but overall it is a fairly standard beautiful landscape composition. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 18:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So much went into this picture as to be too much. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I thought the site is well depicted and the technical quality would make it enough for an FP but it's already clear that something is missing at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Galite-Galiton 127.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 08:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I'm honestly not convinced, but I find the motif interesting enough, along with the light and shadows on the cliffs, to say that it probably belongs on the front page. I don't know whether or how many others will agree. It's not a slam dunk (totally obvious choice) to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacks wow, and quality issues (noise reductioned and oversharpened, I guess – crisp sharp edges but no details on areas) --Kreuzschnabel 12:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hello everybody certainly I will improve my photos thank you for your kind comments --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Withdraw your nominations then and re-nominate after rework to avoid voting mixup between versions. Thanks! --Kreuzschnabel 16:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bill Clinton speaking (2015).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 21:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of everything mentioned above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • IMHO, the FPX template is not a tool for driving the last nail into the coffin after considerable opposing but rather to keep FPC which clearly have no chance from gathering dozens of opposes ;-) --Kreuzschnabel 13:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought the idea was that if a picture clearly was not going to get any support, it might as well be FPXed after a decent interval. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bishkek 03-2016 img11 Chuy Prospekt.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 16:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
  •   Info All by -- A.Savin 16:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 16:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good picture, the red on the carpet seems oversaturated. Too much empty space on the right though for a balanced composition, crop suggestion added. I usually don’t like the habit of alternatives in here but I’ll make an exception in this case :-) --Kreuzschnabel 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the composition as is but would of course consider an alternative if it's offered. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC); no problem with the crop --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 06:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks a bit unbalanced to me. Since nothing else is symmetrical, I don't see why the pillar has to be dead center. A crop like the one suggested above would be better. w.carter-Talk 08:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks for the ping. I agree that the photo is even better this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting because we don't have many photos from Kyrgyzstan. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nicely taken picture that unfortunately, to me, has too many discordant elements for FP (QI definitely, though). Perhaps as a closeup of the soldiers it would have been stronger. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Dutch Panzerhaubitz fires in Afghanistan.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 19:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Probably not noise, but rather JPEG compression artifact, which cannot really be removed. File size is pretty small for 6MP. --DXR (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. It's regrettable that this is a JPG and not in a less lossy format, but after looking at it again, I think it's worthy of my   Support, in spite of the noise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support great shot! Pun intended... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like what the picture captures, it's a great shot, but I'm just not sure about the file itself with the over compression and resulting JPEG artifacts. -- KTC (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • weak   Oppose – it’s a great shot (of the photographer), and I’d support regardless of ethical opinions about warfare, if only the tank wasn’t that noisy. (Talking of image noise, the acoustic noise was to be expected.) --Kreuzschnabel 14:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A perfect click at a perfect timing. Good quality. --Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 05:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 00:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 03:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise problem is gone now --The Photographer (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You are Welcome Ikan Kekek I was thinking create another alt nomination, however, IMHO in this case is not necesary --The Photographer (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Nisyros - Stefanos Caldera3.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 06:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Sacsayhuamán, Cusco, Perú, 2015-07-31, DD 05.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 19:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info View of a row of corners belonging to the Saksaywaman walls, a citadel on the northern outskirts of the city of en:Cusco, historic capital of the Inca Empire, today Peru. The first sections of the citadel were first built by the Killke culture about 1100 and expanded by the Inca from the 13th century. The dry stone walls are composed of huge stones, which boulders are carefully cut by workers to fit them together extremely tightly without mortar. All by me, Poco2 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support So, Martin, I followed your proposal -- Poco2 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 19:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good job Martin Poco. --w.carter-Talk 20:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I enjoy that picture. The sky may be a tad noisy, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 06:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Moderate oppose Very nice colors, and I can see what you were thinking, Poco, but unfortunately the lines of perspective just aren't there enough for me to be wowed enough to support. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 00:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 20:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Venezuela - Gran Sabana - Perico carasucia (Aratinga pertinax).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 21:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Parc National de Jabal Zaghouan 176.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 08:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of everything stated above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 22:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2016-07-28 15-00-15 magasin-sect-bosmont.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 09:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
  •   Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 09:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- w.carter-Talk 09:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this interesting enough to feature. I enjoy the color and direction of the light and the shapes and colors of the space. For some reason, it's very hard to zoom to full size without the file stopping to function, but I was able to zoom back and forth just enough to be able to fairly judge the picture before it crashed again. Is anyone else having this problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Nope, no crash here. Have you tried the other resolutions? w.carter-Talk 09:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure. No problem seeing it at full screen. Only enlarging it to full size, and when I accomplished that, toggling between full and full-page size were problems. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Carduus crispus - Keila.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 08:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /