Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2017

Contents

File:BandoneonistaMDP-jul2017.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 00:43:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 00:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is too harsh, the hat and the keys are almost blown, and while the top-down view gives you a good background for the man, it is seldom a good way to photograph people. --cart-Talk 09:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --BugWarp (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting issue as already mentioned by cart. -- Pofka (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 18:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per others. Daphne Lantier 04:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Куполите на манастирот Св. Јоаким Осоговски.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 09:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Bielerhöhe - Barbarakapelle - Brunnen 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 20:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Bielerhöhe - Silvrettastausee - Wasserleitung 03.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 20:16:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Jabiru Mato Grosso Pantanal Brazil-3.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 02:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 08:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Texturas da Gruta da Lapinha.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 02:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 08:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Cochem, Reichsburg, 2012-08 CN-01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 10:40:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany

File:Frans Huygelen's Prometheus, rear view.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2017 at 12:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info sculpture by Frans Huygelen (1978–1940), rest by El Grafo -- El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK, I'm giving the film thing another try. Better camera, better lens, better weather, finer-grained film and a subject that was purpose-built to be attractive ;-) Bonus points for the first one to find the reference to the year 3000 in the image. --El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, you might be referring to this. --cart-Talk 13:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter:Good idea, but not really what I had in mind. In a way Daniel below is pretty close to the answer. --El Grafo (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like it should be the logo for the Iron Butt Association. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info After viewing this on another monitor I think I pulled the highlights down too much in the initial version, so I brought them back a bit. Hope that's OK for you, Daniel? --El Grafo (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, of course ... I wasn't criticizing it, just making a humorous comment. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That change was unrelated to your comment, just wanted to make sure my only supporter so far (thanks!) is OK with me making changes post-vote. --El Grafo (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Finally, yes! --Yann (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WClarke 17:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Salar de Carcote, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 54-58 PAN.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 06:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - How about another Chilean salt pan? The different substances and land forms in the picture give it a high educational value, and the way the lake curves toward the viewer helps make the form pleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 07:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition. Alexander Leisser (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool, thank you, Ikan! If I may add something this spot is quite far away from civilisation and you will see no turists around. It's rarely photographed. Poco2 11:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - But you boldly go where few other visitors go. Thanks for taking the photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A real adventure was the day after when taking this "easy" 2 hours route (according to Google Maps). It took us indeed 12 hours as we had to partially build up a way to cross the mountains I guess we were the first drivers after 10 years... :) Poco2 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow! You had to build a stretch of new road? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Ikan: yes, some actually, but not that long. Usually our AWD could manage it after we dropped some rocks in the right spots. Sometimes it was even easier to drive near the road than on it :) Poco2 14:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Vexillum citrinum 01.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 06:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I don't know what you mean, but I'm glad you like the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek:, per Cart. This is the exact drawing I was talking about. There are similar examples. I first saw this drawing in Psychology 101 in my freshman year of college. PumpkinSky talk 02:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Ikan for the nomination --Llez (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Парк Пелистер 2015.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 08:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena#Clouds

File:Поезд на фоне горы Шатрище. Воронежская область.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2017 at 11:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info created by Алексей Задонский - uploaded by Алексей Задонский - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes definitely. This was also one of my WLE jury favorites and it's somewhat Kabelleger style. --A.Savin 13:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 13:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Wonderful composition. But there are two issues: Please check for CAs (for example at the posts) and please have a look for noise in the sky. Thank you. --XRay talk 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I'm finding it very over-saturated. EXIF confirms the various saturation adjustments are fairly extreme (e.g. Vibrance +47 will make the sky look odd especially, and red +84 is just burning out the RED dots on my screen). A more natural post-processing would get my support. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support While I agree those are pretty extreme settings, for me the red does not come on too strong; in fact it stands out better for that against the cool, subdued background. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite quality-wise. --Laitche (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer illuminated tail though. --Laitche (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Laitche: Doubled vote. Perhaps you meant an other nomination? --A.Savin 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks A.Savin, I have no idea what happen to me!? --Laitche (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Because of the CAs, especially at the poles at the right --Llez (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Hairy dragonfly (Brachytron pratense) male close up.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2017 at 19:34:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment No way! They also eat other dragonflies. When you've lived underwater for a couple of years and only emerge and fly around for a few weeks, you better enjoy it. Charles (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Amazing view of the compound eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The description should be improved, IMO; it's a bit confusing to see what this is without knowing that the dragonfly is eating.--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support Not perfect but I trust Charles' judgement here, and this is not the sort of picture you can just go out and take every day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not convinced about DOF/sharpness. --Hockei (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Poststeig Gröden Pontives.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 20:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Virmalised 17.03.15.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 15:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yeah but aren't those different locations? Granted, it's hard to tell without geocodes ...--Peulle (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Is that a stitching error a third of the way in from the right? (See the shoreline). Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a stitched photo. Auroras move too fast to make good multi-frame shots of them. --cart-Talk 18:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Vista de Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 138.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 18:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Šiauliai Cathedral Interior 1, Šiauliai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 16:06:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Boots of a man.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2017 at 10:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing
  •   Info Ever since I shot this photo, it has grown on me. The planking provides a very good, neutral but interesting background for the shoes. For me it is sort of a relaxed, scruffy-looking, 'yin-yang' complement to this FP. The photo is not staged, the man was quite surprised and amused when he saw that I was taking a photo of his shoes. All by me -- cart-Talk 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very outdoory - but he should've tied his laces...!   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Casual shot. I fail to see it fitting among other pictures of this category. They look much more extraordinary. -- Pofka (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I quite like having such generic and useful images on Commons, but as for FP I'm not really seeing any particular wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Very well stated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support First, although those are Timberlands, they look similar enough to my own black Eccos that this could well be my feet in the wintertime (at this time of the year they are often likely to be bare, in contrast). Second, I like the internal yin-yang of this picture: the black boots, a little sandy, against the clean-looking planking. Third, we don't have a lot of FPs of clothing or footwear to begin with. Fourth and last, I like the idea of a picture of black boots that doesn't evoke fascism. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per yin-yang of Daniel. PumpkinSky talk 02:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support seb26 (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Peulle. I also don't like the untied boot, as it looks a bit sloppy. If this were going to be used as a stock photo, the untied boot isn't a plus and really limits the image's potential for use. Daphne Lantier 06:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Neither the subject or the composition is exceptional. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks all for a very interesting discussion. :-) --cart-Talk 07:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Buviksugga Risør (3).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2017 at 16:35:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Norway
  •   Info all by User:Peulle. The cairn was built as a daymark just outside Risør, Norway in 1898, and in 1979 a round-light lantern was added. The solar panel was added on later to ensure power to the lantern battery year round. At the time the cairn was built, Risør was an important port town in the south of Norway, and the cairn was part of the work of marking local rocks in the skerries. Beyond it is the east fjord, one of the two shipping lanes leading out to sea from the town. The open ocean can be seen in the distance. -- Peulle (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Living between two fjords as I do, I know just how dang hard it is to capture their grandeur in a photo, you just end up with a lot or nice but uninteresting water. The cairn is too small and dark in the photo to make the scene interesting. If only the sky had put on a show, things might have been different. Sorry. --cart-Talk 16:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per W.carter. Daphne Lantier 06:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for reviewing; next time I'll ask the sun to give us some better light. :) --Peulle (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per cart. Lighting is very unpleasant here. -- Pofka (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment gives cutting (see picture) a good result? - --Neptuul (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That crop would make it borderline for minimum size. --cart-Talk 09:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't downsample or crop my images needlessly. I'm thinking about shooting an image with closer zoom next time I go there.--Peulle (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Mooie bloeiwijze van een Speerdistel (Cirsium vulgare) 03.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 04:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Lhorn: I've removed your vote because you only have 35 edits on Commons. You must have 50 or more edits on Commons to vote here at FPC. Daphne Lantier 23:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 05:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:2016.09.02.-04-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Veraenderliche Krabbenspinne-Weibchen-mit Beute.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 06:05:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

No. --Hockei (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Thomisidae (Crab spiders)

File:European otter 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2017 at 13:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I   Support, although a crop could be more interesting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Fennec Fox Peek.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2017 at 10:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Schulmühle P4194501 2 3N-2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 07:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Tiger Zoo Vienna.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2017 at 16:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Sorry, I missed this point. Should I delete the nomination? Alexander Leisser (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't have to do anything with this, it will be archived soon enough. OR, you could {{withdraw}} one of the other nominations and open up this instead if you want to. --cart-Talk 08:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
cart how do I open up this image again? I withdraw the gibbon because cropping was not an option. Alexander Leisser (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nom open again after nominator closed another nom and now only have two. This was just a newbie mistake that I'm sure will not be repeated. :-) Please get on with the voting. --cart-Talk 14:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I would like to see if the purple fringing can be cleaned up a little more than it may already have been. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a weak composition and weak technically -exposure, sharpness etc, Dof (F5.6) etc. Charles (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Charles what does you mean by composition, technically, ... critic. It seems you are an ambitious photographer and your critics maybe can help getting better. The composition was chosen to give the tiger space in front of him and preserve a rule-of-third. The left eye at the crossing of the most left and upper third. A tighter crop would have chopped of his leg or leave a small green frame which doesn't look good either. Without space underneath his paw the lake would not be complete. Exposure was 1/500s to get the waterdrops sharp and ISO 200 to reduce noise as much as possible. The lens was at 200mm with a 2x converter, together 400mm with widest aperture at 5.4 giving smallest possible dof. It reaches from ear to ear, keeping the background out. Point of focus left eye. The picture appears as sharp as a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 can be with exact focusing, even in a 100% zoom. I don't know which point I missed in your critic and hope you can help me. Alexander Leisser (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Everything is a matter of opinion and sorry if I was too abrupt. The basic idea is OK, but the water masks the face unfortunately. Also, I think the crop is too tight for this type of image. The sharpness problem comes from 1/500 sec - far too slow to freeze the water and paw and the F number is too small for good DoF with the lens used. Also, I think we need to see an animal's eye. Charles (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good action shot. I would feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Закат на Бзерпи.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2017 at 11:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Илья Бунин - uploaded by Илья Бунин - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support And this = also one of my WLE'17 jury favorites. Certainly not just a sunset. --A.Savin 11:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to say it but the technical issues are too much for me. It's a very nice motif but the heavy grain pulls down the overall impression; the green areas closer to the camera look completely ruined.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle. -- Pofka (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Okstartnow (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Luz en el Horizonte - Amancio Gonzáles - Morro Jable - 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 15:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Morning at the Hamilton Valley located just outside of Mammoth Cave National Park.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 21:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Rafael Rodrigues Camargo - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a nice scene and I can live with the graininess due to the fog, but not the lens flares at top right and bottom left corners. --cart-Talk 22:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per W.carter. Daphne Lantier 22:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - in addition to the lens flares, there seem to be a series of little dust spots in the middle of the picture frame. If you look through the picture correctly and fix everything, I could support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Okstartnow (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lens flare, grainy, halo. -- -donald- (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Reluctant oppose I want to like it but a) there is more lens flare than I think is necessary, b) there is clear evidence of overuse of HDR on the trees to left of center and c) the sky could have been handled better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20150509155239 - Avenida Tiradentes.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 18:00:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I was skeptical about supporting this at first because it looked quite random picture, however if something like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tokyo_Metro_and_JR_East_at_Ochanomizu,_Tokyo.jpg can be FP, then probably this one may join the club too. Colors look quite extraordinary and playful here. -- Pofka (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I agree that we should consider images like this one and not dismiss them out of hand, that other photo is in a different class, IMO. There's more going on and more of a skyline imagery. This one would have to be really really good to impress me, and it's not really doing it. There's quite a lot of chroma noise, the composition is a bit tight on both sides and the light is not really great either. In summary: I must oppose.--Peulle (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Peulle. Daphne Lantier 20:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose on the basis of the CA, which I see distinctly. If you fix that, I will reconsider (no promises of a changed vote, though). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose wondering what might have caused all that chroma noise. Exif looks fine... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. I also find the background too unsharp and the crops don't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Оџакот на манастирот Св. Јован Бигорски.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 16:45:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image:Szent Ilona kápolna Teskánd Zalaegerszeg.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 13:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Zalaegerszeg
  •   Info created by Nxr-at - uploaded by Nxr-at - nominated by Nxr-at -- Nxr-at (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Nxr-at (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the church needs perspective correction; otherwise, the image is comopositionally striking and of high quality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark (for 15:50 July). The grass shouldn't be that colour in daylight I think. Either under-exposed or badly processed. Could do with being saved with an embedded colour profile too. Wrt the "perspective correction", I don't think this is going to be possible as the photo was shot too close to the church and the resulting distortion would be too much. I don't think, even with light-level fixes, this is comparable with FP level for churches. -- Colin (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obviously too dark and unnatural. I think the image wasn't edited in Lightroom or Photoshop yet and still has that ugly darkness which sometimes happens when you are photographing with Nikon DSLR in sunlight. If it was captured in RAW, then I think it can be easily solved. For now complete oppose. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per others. Daphne Lantier 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light isn't too bad, but shadows need lightening. Perspective must be corrected a bit and the sky needs denoising. If you can fix all of this I might change my vote but as it is, no.--Peulle (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - There's also a dust spot above the left side of the tree, though that should be an easy fix. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Japanese Garden Stone Cistern Fountain NBG 6 LR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 22:00:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Fountains
  •   Info All by me. This is a stone cistern fountain at the Japanese Garden at the Norfolk Botanical Garden. The cistern has a natural tilt to the left. PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good light and a very pleasant subject, unfortunately that plant-sign behind the water pipe is very distracting. Any chance of getting it cloned out? --cart-Talk 09:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Harmony restored, thanks. --cart-Talk 10:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects#Fountains

File:Münster, Hafen -- 2017 -- 1814.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 04:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment You're right. It looks like I've forgotton to check for CAs. I'll fix it. -- XRay talk 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  Fixed It's fixed now. Thank you. --XRay talk 16:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: leider immer noch nicht. Ganz rechts (am Kran) grün/cyan Rand immer noch deutlich sichtbar. Das ganze Bild wirkt auch weiterhin unscharf. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Keine Ahnung, wie ich das übersehen haben konnte. Ich repariere es. Danke. (Und ich werde wohl die Aufnahme irgendwann zur Goldenen oder Blauen Stunde wiederholen. Dann vielleicht ohne Baustelle. Bis September kann man auch noch durchs Wasser laufen, denn quer durchs Becken geht die Skulptur "Steg" von Ayse Erkmen, die bekannteste Skulptur der Skulpturen-Ausstellung.) --XRay talk 05:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  Fixed Checked twice and hopefully OK. Thank you for your advice. --XRay talk 14:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Danke. Die anderen Argumente bleiben jedoch bestehen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Der Dank ist (auch) auf meiner Seite. Ich bin doch froh um jeden Fehler, der weniger in den Bildern ist. --XRay talk 06:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me, boring scene. I've not looked at it technically. Charles (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I guess if you're going to have a blown cloud in an image, let it be lost in the sun. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this scene could work very well with some more interesting light (golden hour?), but as it is it just looks too bleak to me. (I'm also not a huge fan of all those user space templates on the description page, BTW) --El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. But golden hour might work in this place indeed. -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much water and sky. Average light. --Yann (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:San Giuseppe dei Teatini (Palermo) - Dome.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 22:08:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info San Giuseppe dei Teatini is a church in the Sicilian city of Palermo. It is located near the Quattro Canti, and is considered one of the most outstanding examples of the Sicilian Baroque in Palermo. The church was built at the beginning of the 17th century by Giacomo Besio, a Genoese member of the Theatines order. It has a majestic though simple façade. In the centre niche is housed a state of San Gaetano, founder of the Theatines order. Another striking feature is the large dome with a blue and yellow majolica covering. P.s. The Roof lantern is white non overexposed. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 23:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very interesting the geometric composition which comes out from the picture. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 15:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No words. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 06:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info One of the most striking images I've ever seen on Commons - and certainly deserving another shot. If you've ever tried something like that, you certainly understand how difficult it is to create this effect successfully. Colin's work is a truly great photograph that we should appreciate accordingly. A couple of weeks ago I expressed the hope (in our group on facebook) that FPC has become much more open to unconventional yet great motifs. So please do prove me right. Btw., two years ago critics pointed out that there would be no possible encyclopedic value - they were proven wrong. Created and uploaded by Colin, nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the initiative, Martin, I still support of course. --El Grafo (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Renoir is still painting. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, of course. This photo took three years of attempts each spring -- the bluebells are at their best for only a week or two. I think educational imagery is more than just "A perfect standard reproduction of X for identification purposes in an encyclopaedia" but can also give the impression of a scene or generate emotion, make you stop and look, or enjoy the wonders of physics.. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep! I've always been under the impression that this already was an FP. Silly me! Thanks Martin for setting things straight. --cart-Talk 08:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it - wow. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm just not wowed - sorry, that's my personal opinion. On a side note, I have a bit of a   Comment: The archive shows that this image was thoroughly discussed with a total of 27 people voting. It was not featured then and no changes has been made to the image since then, so I feel like the image had its chance, no?--Peulle (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The first nom was made over two years ago, the Wiki-project has grown, the whole world has changed since then, maybe also the FPC? I wonder if any of my abstract FPs would have been welcome back then. --cart-Talk 14:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For above....strange things for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't do anything with such a strange picture. Not the slightest wow. --Hockei (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I prefer this one   --Laitche (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am gonna nominate that one for FP :) Poyekhali 10:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - A series nom along with File:Bluebells, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg would have also been a good way to handle this, but just taking this photo per se, I find it fascinating, colorful and striking, all of which add up to an excellent photo with wow, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not featured for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fun to make, but not FP. Charles (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Can't decide what I think about this type of photo. PumpkinSky talk 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done and well representative. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support why not. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As per my !vote in the previous FPC. These seem to be a thing lately, at least in the UK, according to the photo magazines I get, and I think having a featurable one like this would be great. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose I felt pain in my brain and eyes immediately after watching into this. -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Jaritz. I really like it. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, yes it has been placed in an article but no the technique is not significant enough to warrant being featured on this basis. It would look odd and out of place among the other Nature shots in that category when from the discussion above and the nomination statement, the camera technique is the point being made. seb26 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That reads like an argument for requiring the photo to be featured in a special category, not an argument against featuring the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That doesn't represent what I wrote. My opinion is that it is not worthy of being featured regardless, and that additionally if it were under the Nature category it would be an inappropriate fit. seb26 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That special category might be called e.g. «impressionist photography». -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per before. -- King of ♠ 19:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose and again ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it and appreciate it! And I also say that as a painter which side of me people here might not know. Too hard for me to give either a support or oppose because I'm still not sure how it suits the motif of this website as a featured one. But personally very inspirative work indeed so I kind of want to encourage experimental stuff too. --Ximonic (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per before.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I wonder why this is not yet an FP --Poyekhali 10:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong Oppose There is nothing more than just a valued image of the photographic effect for me here. Photographs similarly to paintings are supposed to be works of art that have to allow engaging in deep thinking and enjoying while staring at, while this heavily manipulated one makes pain for the eyes in few seconds and does not allow one to concentrate on what is there and what it has to mean. I even think that the original one would be a much better candidate.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Kiril, I'm sorry you don't enjoy it, and it causes you "pain for the eyes" but it is not "manipulated". File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg is "manipulated", and it's a POTY. The above image gives an impression of a bluebell wood in England. That's a valid form of representation imo, though not a common one. At another extreme of photography is File:Army Athletics Long Jumper at The Inter Corps Athletics Competition at Tidworth, Wiltshire MOD 45152793 (cropped).jpg, which gives the 1/6000th second moment a long jumper lands in the sand. It isn't "real" either, because sand doesn't stay absolutely still suspended in the air. It is an effect only possibly with high-speed photography, not human vision, and at one level is just a mess of sand getting in the way of seeing the athlete. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Colin: I praise the effort to create an unusual work of art from a photograph, but I'm sorry to say that this does not work for me at least for an FP (perfect valued image, though). As for the manipulation, most of the FPs we have here are manipulated in some way and no-one has a standardised definition of what "manipulation" stands for. For me personally, the combining of multiple images to produce unrealistic effects is "cheating", while altering a photograph that makes it difficulty to spot the composition normally is "manipulation". I also don't think this term should be taken in a negative connotation, as it is a normal thing done on photographs in the lust of creating something special or of higher quality. Regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Kiril, I have neither "combin[ed] multiple images" nor have I "alter[ed] a photograph". I pressed the shutter while moving the camera. Other photos are taken by pressing the shutter while the subject moves. Any processing was no different to that for a standard image. Only a single image here. I'm not sure you appreciate that the 1/6000th second photo of the athlete is no more "manipulated" or "cheating" than this. Just different ways of observing the world through a camera. See en:Photo manipulation -- this is not that. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nichts zu erkennen --Ralf Roleček 13:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 11 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Guépier d'Europeau parc national de l'Ichkeul 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 14:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It's another photo completely différent, different bird, different place, different background El Golli Mohamed (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles, unless I'm blind, which is certainly possible, that other photo is not an FP nor is it listed elsewhere here at FPC, so there's no "too similar" debate to be made here at FPC that I can see. PumpkinSky talk 21:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually I must be mad - I've no idea what image I was looking at. Apologies. Charles (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 21:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't mind another FP of this kind of bird (there are a few already) but the tail-part in this photo is too unsharp for me. Nice otherwise. --cart-Talk 22:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same as cart. Tail-part is really unsharp here. -- Pofka (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Plectranthus scutellarioides NBG LR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 10:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants#Family_:_Lamiaceae

File:Roca de la Ley, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 022.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 13:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Red sky + Giraffe + Kenya = A sunrise to remember (15062623745).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 05:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Parliament of Canada, Peace Tower under Clouds.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 21:27:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Cyali - uploaded by Cyali - nominated by Cyali -- Cyali (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cyali (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A tilted tower with the face of it in shadow. No wow for me. There's a big off-color circle at bottom right as well. Daphne Lantier 01:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daphne. I see you're pretty new to the site. You might consider nominating photos to COM:QIC first, and/or to avail yourself of COM:Photography critiques. I don't mean to suggest you aren't welcome at FPC. You are, but nevertheless, you might get more tips at those other parts of the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Cyali (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss, Louvre 22 July 2017.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 05:58:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Joe deSousa (Flickr) - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this photo compelling: It pulls me in, so regardless of the fact that photos with these kinds of crops aren't normally featured, I think this one should be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 07:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose The sculpture is compelling, not sure about this photograph though. There is possibly a vignette applied to the image, which helps "pull one in" to the faces but then one can't actually see Psyche's face, just a nose. Compare File:Psyche revived by the kiss of Love, Louvre 14 September 2009 003.jpg where we can see she is looking into his eyes -- surely that's essential for a close-up of this scene. Btw, the full sculpture looks like File:Psyché ranimée par le baiser de l'Amour.jpg. I think the best crop shows the embrace of both figures such as File:Amor-Psyche-Canova-JBU04.JPG. I don't think the landscape orientation is helpful here and the figures are positioned with Cupid's eye in the centre (perhaps cause that's where the focus point of the camera was) rather than framing a little lower and more to the right. As a plus, the image is sharp, and retains detail on the stone, and avoids any distractions in the background (which isn't easy). I also like the soft tones, because too many photos like this are ruined by applying lots of "Clarity". -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I hear you, Colin, but I share Ikan's point of view ---Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This angle and crop is designed to capture a moment rather than a statue. The shot creates a tension and makes it sensual, intimate, almost erotic. Sure, we can't see Psyche's face, but her exposed throat and arms up in surrender to love, shows how vulnerable she is at this moment. Just picture Google "woman with head back" for comparison. --cart-Talk 09:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Cart I tried your Google, but mostly I still see a face in each image, rather than a neck and nose. I agree with all the qualities you describe, but feel they come from the statue, which is great, rather than this composition, which seems created by holding the camera in the standard orientation aimed at Cupid's eye. I understand the point of cropping, but they are embracing, so I'd like to see his arm to complete the embrace, rather than a bit of wing. I'll change to "weak oppose" because it is a good quality photo of this statue, and it isn't as boring as many of our statue FPs. But if you're going to crop, the composition/orientation is the point, and I don't think it is quite right here. We've got a 3:2 horizontal image because that's what the camera makes when you hold it normally rather than a crop that is based on the subject. Why all the space on the left? I'm just itching to turn the camera vertically. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Why this format? The crop is too tight on bottom and also on top. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight crop. Chopped wings probably is the biggest problem here.. -- Pofka (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose same as Uoaei.--Ermell (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. --Peulle (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Probably wasted support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The light does it perfectly--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei. --Karelj (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Waterloopbos. Koelwatervijver Maasvlakte centrale model M1193.M1217 001.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 04:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Anax imperator 2015 11 23 6807.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 10:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Arnoldstein Radendorf Wallfahrtskirche Maria Siebenbruenn mit Dobratsch 23052016 2048.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 04:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Waterloopbos. Onderzoek afsluiting van zeegaten Deltawerken M995 18.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 01:18:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by Dominicus Johannes Bergsma - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm nominating this photo because I find it lovely. I'm not blind to the noise in some areas of shadow, but overall, I love the composition and find the technical quality of the photo as I see it to be quite adequate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If this was all nature, I might support, but I find the concrete and metal unattractive and not really in harmony with the rest of the scene. Daphne Lantier 01:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I don't really see any wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 14:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle; no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  Obviously, you all disagree with me. No point in prolonging this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.30.-01-Wagbachniederung Oberhausen-Rheinhausen--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2017 at 13:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Lestidae (Spread-winged damselflies)

File:Nizwa Fort and Minaret of Friday Mosque.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 09:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Oman
  •   Info The minaret of Friday Mosque as seen from Nizwa Fort, Nizwa, Oman. This picture grew on me over the time. First I was a bit disappointed that the sky was rather misty. But misty skies are actually to be expected when visiting an oasis town in the middle of the dessert surrounded by mountains. So now I really appreciate the "One Thousand and One Nights" feeling the image conveys to me with everything from the parapet to the minaret. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very striking image. The nearest foreground is unsharp at full size, but it's a large file, so it's best not to overemphasize that detailed a view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The mist actually works for the image here, bringing out the minaret better. --cart-Talk 11:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan and cart. Doesn't seem like it should work, and indeed it's almost oversharpened, but as a result the background detail is sharp enough to not use "unsharp background" as a reason for opposing, and frankly the minaret is just the right amount off center. (I also like that roof, so much like Qusayr Amra in Jordan ... wonder what the shared architectural influence might have been, as I don't think the Sassanids got that far south. And what's that museum in Dallas with the similar roof ... my dad noticed that right when we got to Qusayr Amra, and wondered if that had been the inspiration). Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support