Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2017
File:Panorama Burg Lindelbrunn.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2016 at 19:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Flat lighting = no wow for me, sorry, especially given how the castle is backlit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --★ Poké95 01:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KOH -- Thennicke (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per KoH. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not so much per KoH, although he's right, but to me that the processing in the left frames with the castle is more erratic than that in the right frames with the deeper, more satisfying view of the landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2016 at 18:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info All by -- The Photographer 18:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support a very subtle nomination. I strongly recommend to view it at both full screen and full res! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment If the subject is the stainded glass window, it appears to be cropped at the bottom. That wouldn't be accepted for a painting. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's cut on top too because there is a structure blocking the view. Btw, here is a example of a FP cut of a painting --The Photographer 10:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think I have to Oppose then. The other FP doesn't convince me to change my mind. We have thousands of stained glass windows on Commons and I don't think this is remarkable among them, and flawed too. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's cut on top too because there is a structure blocking the view. Btw, here is a example of a FP cut of a painting --The Photographer 10:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. A good picture but not good enough for FP in an area where the bar is pretty high. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
File:2016 Newport Beach Boat Parade by D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2016 at 17:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info created by D Ramey Logan - uploaded by Santa's Helper - nominated by Kris Kringle
- Support -- Don - WPPilot (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Blurry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp at full size. --Cayambe (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: camera shake. | 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. |
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Турно Скијање 2015.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 10:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment a tighter crop could further improve the image --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support anyway --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, maybe, but I'm OK with it as it is. His bent posture and pack accentuate the "man against the elements" thing here, which works quite well at the current size. I can imagine this being memed, Successories-style, with some text like "It's all ... uphill from here." Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel convinced me. --cart-Talk 00:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The midday backlit lighting doesn't work for me. (Also, I think it can be a bit brighter.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really seeing what is exceptional about this ski photo. The lighting isn't great per KoH, the camera angle isn't dramatic, there's no mountain vista in the background, and you can't see his face. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Would like to see the face of the skier --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per all the other opposers. This isn't the "best of the best" IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Kanyam Tea GardenKanyam-00015100.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 16:23:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Nepal
- Info all by me -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose beautiful scenery but subpar quality (primarily due to the incorrectly chosen focus). Sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The main subject is unsharp. --Cayambe (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Martin, really a pity since it is such a beautiful scene. --cart-Talk 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone else's comments. Please try photographing this motif again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed in an attempt to compensate for the off focus; also while I can easily accept blue mountains here, purple ones are a bit much. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the focus/sharpness/color problems mentioned by the five opposers. | 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. |
lNeverCry 07:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 20:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Halos around the building -- Thennicke (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the halos, especially at left. I also wonder if moving the camera further left would be possible in order to get a composition where the big fall-colored tree doesn't hide most of the building? lNeverCry 07:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. The whole processing looks very unreal to me, e.g. the windows of the towers being so much darker than the night sky. --El Grafo (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the effects of the overprocessing noted by others. It seems as if the idea was to eat the cake and have it too, to have the building well illuminated but not have the blown lights you'd otherwise have after even the most careful of 13-second exposures. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanx at all --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Lesser Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 13:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
- Info created by Alex Khristov (Design: Wasyl Krytschewskyj) - uploaded by Akhristov - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I would recommend a nomination at COM:VIC, as this is definitely a valuable image. However, I don't find anything outstandingly beautiful or fascinating about this coat of arms that would impel me to vote to feature it. No offense, I hope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 19:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan, good work but not striking enough for FP. --cart-Talk 19:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 13:07, 30 December 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. |
File:Canthare à Aphrodite, MBA Lyon E 388b.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 17:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Ceramics
- Info created by Gozitano - uploaded by Gozitano - nominated by Gozitano -- Gozitano (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Gozitano (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very nice piece, but the photo is not sharp enough for FP, in my opinion. I'm thinking that if you could use a softer light source, that might help, but I don't know how possible that is in this museum. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A photo of an ancient artifact like this should be represented in its true colors. It doesn't look like there has been any attempt to fix the white balance, I tested it a bit and it looks like there are at least three light temperature present making this almost impossible to fix. It is submitted under "Ceramics" but the description on the file's page says nothing about what material it is made of, pleas add that. --cart-Talk 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 13:08, 30 December 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. |
File:Милениумскиот крст на Водно.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created by Daniel Ilievski - uploaded by Daniel Ilievski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A QI for sure but not striking enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
File:2016 Konica Auto S3 1.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 15:27:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry but... It is a very good photo, it is extremely sharp and well lit, in fact so good that you can see all the dirt, grime, dust, fingerprints and other yuk-y stuff on the camera. If I'm looking at such a good photo I really want to see a nice clean camera without any such disturbing elements. This cleaning usually has to be done in two stages: 'analogue' cleaning before shooting and the some additional dust-spotting and removing with the clone brush. In my book Colin still holds the award for cleanest FP camera, sadly the same can't be said for many of the other FP camera pics. --cart-Talk 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Old cameras are going to have dust, just like ruins or historical sites that are popular tourist attractions will have crowds of people. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Question - Are those really analogous? I'm tempted to oppose per cart's argument. I think it's quite possible to carefully clean an old camera; do you think it's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel. I wish this was a Minolta XE7 or XK, but you take what you can get... lNeverCry 08:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes it is a bit dusty but mainly the photo doesn't make me go wow. I think one has to have just a little extra to get FP. Like being super clean or having interesting lighting, and if the tabletop surface is visible, it needs to be more photogenic than white paper. The background isn't pure white, like File:Sony A77.jpg (another immaculate camera) which limits its use a little. I note that we do have a mix of cleanliness of older cameras at FP, with some worse than this and some immaculate. Evan-Amos is the expert at taking photos of vintage equipment that look like they have only just come out the box. My own camera was almost new when I photographed it, but still required cleaning to remove household dust that gathers within seconds, and a fair bit of software cleanup. The rear photo was particularly difficult, with the LCD screen, viewfinder and especially the rubber eyepiece attracting dust like a magnet. So I do appreciate this isn't easy. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - cart and Colin said it much better and in much more detail than I could. This is certainly a very good photo from a technical standpoint, and I don't think anyone would ever think of suggesting that it doesn't richly merit its status as a Valued and Quality Image. But I think the improvements they outline could and should be made for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 07:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info Hypogeum of the Amphitheatre of El Jem, an archeological site in the city of El Djem, Tunisia. At both sides of this tunnel are located the cells where the beasts for the games were kept. The amphitheatre, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979, was built around 238 AD, when the modern Tunisia belonged to the Roman province of Africa. It is the third biggest amphiteatre and one of the best preserved Roman ruins in the world with capacity for 35,000 spectators within 148 metres (486 ft) and 122 metres (400 ft) long axes and a unique in Africa. All by me, Poco2 07:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 07:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I know the metal grate is not an original Roman element, but I love what it does to the photo. This is probably my new favorite out of all of your photos of this amphitheatre that I've seen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, Ikan, me too, apart from the nice panorama from the top that ended up 17th in WLM. Poco2 09:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 08:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, the metal grate ruins it for me. B&W might work here though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, interesting proposal, I will add an alternative in b&w, first time Poco2 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like Tunisia in colors, the BW looks too gloomy for me. --cart-Talk 13:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The top corners are too distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan, I think the mesh roof actually makes the picture more interesting—I'm sure the Romans would have been like, "Cur non cogitare?" if they could have seen it. It's a nice combo of old and new. And, to build on cart's comment, the color so works. You could easily expect to see Indiana Jones running past. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Metal grate. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Alt
editInfo Following Martin's proposal an alternative in b&w. Pinging @Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, and Martin Falbisoner: to let them know about the alt Poco2 11:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support interesting, abstract play of shades, shapes and lines --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Either way, it's an outstanding photo for my money. Could they possibly both be featured as a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose nice, but missing the colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Nice use of perspective, and the top corners are much less distracting in BW. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Another case where I'll take either one. lNeverCry 21:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice idea, and I experimented with some crops also, but can't get away from that metal grate, which is just too busy. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 16:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
- Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Interesting photo, but I'd like a little more space on the right side, since the statue's pinky is pointed that way. Is that possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can check the image within the next days, but IMO there is no more space. Do you think another image may be a good choice? The one on the right?--XRay talk 17:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, I don't like that one as much and see what the issue is: There's another building to the right, and including it in the composition makes it more complicated, to its detriment. I will live with this photo for a while and see what I think later. Thanks, XRay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Comment I would actually prefer the second one. In that the hand is "clearer", it isn't interfered with by the lit windows behind it, it also gives an uninterrupted view of it's reflection and that of the horse nearby. In other words, it is less cluttered. Maybe with a little crop at the bottom to get rid of the uninteresting pavement. Decisions, decisions... cart-Talk 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not a decision for today. The crop at the bottom isn't a problem. But I'll wait a couple of days. --XRay talk 17:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral pending nominator's decision. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination A decision! I think, I'll nominate the other image next year. Thanks for all your comments for all the images within this year. --XRay talk 12:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 19:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 20:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 07:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support And seven ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support--XRay talk 16:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
White cedar in sun shower and frost fog, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 17:37:45 (UTC)
-
White cedar in sun shower
-
White cedar in frost fog
- Info A set of two photos of the same two white cedars and a small opening between them about 3 meters above ground. One photo is taken during a sun shower in autumn and the other in frost fog during winter about two months later. All by me, -- cart-Talk 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support of course, an excellent idea :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support great idea, well executed. Thanks for your creativity, cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- weak support the second does not convince me ... but together they work --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I knew I was going to get some comment about that one. It is shot in heavy fog just a few hours after this one so it is bound to be less sharp than the first photo, but I wanted the fog as a feature in the photo since it added to the cold ambience of it. cart-Talk 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I didn't think of these as FPs, but now that they're nominated, I think they work as such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Interesting! Jee 07:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Loved seeing these on your Flickr stream and I'm glad you nominated them. You can almost smell the season in both. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- cart: did you think to join then into one shot, with middle line, or even some home made curve. --Mile (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- PetarM, thanks for your comment. There are several permutations if someone wants to make these two pics into some combined photo: side by side with one or the other first, one on top of the other, half of each photo and so on, using either some software or plain wiki-code with a space between them. I think it is best to keep them as a set of two separate pics here so that people can decide for themselves how they would like to use them in articles etc. Combining them for the nom would make this inflexible. Let's keep this simple and basic. cart-Talk 15:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 22:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
- Info Nativity of Christ at the winged altar of the parish- and pilgrimage church Kefermarkt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master (Master of the Kefermarkt Altar), around 1497. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fröhliche Weihnachten --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 23:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 00:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Nice, but is it not possible to up the sharpness further? Or perhaps it's the type of dull light that hit it that's tiring my eyes a bit when I look at this photo and that wouldn't be helped by further sharpening. Am I the only one who's affected this way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, you're not the only one... Sharpness could be better here, no doubt. I just don't think it's actually bad enough not to support. But any attempt to improve the quality is definetely welcome. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments above, and also in order to prevent a quick close and extend discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pierre André (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support It is very much three dimensional and taken at 90mm. So I think DOF is acceptable. Jee 06:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 09:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
- Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 09:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Merry Xmas Christian, nice touch of the light and colors. --Laitche (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Somehow the dead tree makes an otherwise unremarkable landscape special. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 06:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very sorry to interrupt the support votes, but I really don't get why this composition is great. The village is unsharp and uninteresting to look at, and I think there's too much empty sky. I might rather see the rest of the tree that's cut off on the left and crop the photo just a bit to the right of the church, so as to focus on the dead tree, which is by far the most interesting thing in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Partly per Ikan, but I also don't see any beauty in the subject itself -- so to me it lacks "wow".. sorry. There are ugly subjects that still make my jaw drop but this looks the same as many other rural-industrial areas to me. The light is nice though! -- Thennicke (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thennicke --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opponents --Karelj (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 00:26:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
- Info A little something for those who wanted more artistic and perhaps minimalistic pics. :) A combination of four photos of a halogen floodlight as seen through the pouring rain on a double-glazed window one dark and stormy afternoon. All by me -- cart-Talk 00:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 00:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support @W.carter: I love seeing all the original ideas you come up with. This looks like a very artistic Rorschach test. lNeverCry 01:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- INC, that comment about my crazy ideas being welcome made my day! Now I don't care if the rest of the votes are 'opposes'. --cart-Talk 11:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per INC and out of pure interest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Looks like a very surreal playing card ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment good and interesting! It may be just my screen but I really don't have to try all that hard to identify the individual segments, ie photos, of this composite nomination. Maybe you'd like to go back to photoshop for a sec to improve (darken) the background a bit more? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Martin, thanks for the feedback. :) It's not you monitor, I hadn't planned on "merging" these four photos any further than a thin gradual line to separate them. They are after all photos of a window pane and not total darkness, but if you think a bit darkness would improve the pic, sure I can do that. Only the space around the floodlights though since a total darkening overhaul would damage the fine details on the floodlights themselves. I'll have to do it later though since this is the day we celebrate X-mas in Sweden. Have you seen all the tiny rainbow patterns at full size? --cart-Talk 11:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks - and never mind. The picture is great as it is! So: Support, of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Martin, that very gracious of you. :) Nevertheless, you were right. I've cleaned up the gradient in the darkness between the lights a bit.(Hmmm, in any other context that sentence would have sounded metaphysical and contrived... ;) On this project we certainly say things that would have sounded crazy outside the scope.) Best, cart-Talk 12:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. And lol! :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Creative. If it had no description I would be scratching my head. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support! Jee 06:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 08:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like this more than the other one. The added shapes at left add some interesting structures/lines to the composition. The crop at left may be a bit tight considering the generous right crop though. lNeverCry 08:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Info New version uploaded with even cropping on the left and the right - thanks for noticing that INeverCry -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Now this is nice, especially with the trees breaking in on the sharp lines of the building, stairs and whatever those "fins" are for. --cart-Talk 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @W.carter: I think the "fins" are just decorative. It's a really strange building in many ways. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice architectural picture and converging lines - Benh (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Lovely work with the forms, per other supports. Still a little cool, but I will chalk that up to the photographer's tastes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I assume you're referring to the WB? I've tried to keep the lighting and processing consistent with images such as this and this and IMO this is very much as the scene looked (those trees are I think Eucalyptus cinerea and their leaves are blueish-grey, maybe that's making things look too blue to north american eyes?) And thanks for your comment of course -- Thennicke (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Thennicke: That's sort of what I meant by "the photographer's tastes". You know this scene, I have never been there, and although my mind wants the concrete to be a little warmer (and maybe cheesier) that's not realistic so I defer to your experience there.
There are some eucalyptus trees around on the U.S. East Coast, mostly decorative plantings in larger yards where people wanted a big deciduous shade tree but not (for whatever reason) an oak or maple, but yes of course I haven't set eyes on whole forests of them. Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Okay, now I understand :-) The only reason I mention the trees is that this is a rare type of eucalypt even here, with a unique leaf colour. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Thennicke: That's sort of what I meant by "the photographer's tastes". You know this scene, I have never been there, and although my mind wants the concrete to be a little warmer (and maybe cheesier) that's not realistic so I defer to your experience there.
- Support Much stronger composition than before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support EXIF data very short. Next time: Please add a description to your nomination. --XRay talk 16:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @XRay: Good observation about the EXIF, I'll try my best to track down which program is doing that. I'll also add a more detailed description; thanks for pointing that out -- Thennicke (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 09:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created and uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Info Ceiling over the marble Tomb of Hafez, northern edge of the city of Shiraz, Iran. The mausoleum is dedicated to Khwāja Shams-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Ḥāfeẓ-e Shīrāzī (1325/6-1389/90), better known as Hafez, one of the most important poets in the country history. The mauselum is situated in the Musalla Gardens and was built in 1935 according to a design of French architect and archaeologist André Godard, are at the site of previous structures, the best-known of which was built in 1773. Poco2 10:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - There is already a Featured Picture of the ceiling of this mausoleum, and I think it's quite a good picture, but it's a detail picture concentrating on the center, whereas this shows all the tilework. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 10:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Thank you Ikan once more for this finding! Poco2 10:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional info. This was built in 1935? I assume the design is heavily influenced by earlier styles well-known to the archaeologist/architect who designed it, because I definitely wouldn't have guessed 20th century for this style. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pierre André (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 12:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop is a bit awkward, and the off-center positioning made me think it was a heptagon until I counted the sides! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KoH, off-center positioning doesn't work so well for this image IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I take the point. It's a perfectly valid point of view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 11:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
- Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 11:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 11:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support At first I was thinking that maybe it could have been cropped in tighter, but looking at it and thinking about it I realized that the background is just warm and subdued enough to perfectly contrast the bright yet cool sculpture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel. lNeverCry 21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support "Oddly enough" ;) my first reaction was like Daniel's, that the crop was too wide but then I realized I could not suggest a better one since I wouldn't want to cut the glow from the horse, so it is perfect as it is. Really unusual. --cart-Talk 22:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Flawless, to my eyes -- Thennicke (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Rofental, Tirol.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 07:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Doronenko (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - This photo's excellence is most evident to me at full size. I love the rockiness, the high, narrow valley, the contrast of light and shade, the brighter regions being further away, the dramatic sky, the glaciers, all the shapes. I'll be interested to see whether the rest of you share or don't share my feelings about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Ikan. The waterfall at left is especially dramatic. However, quality is not fantastic (old camera, I know) and it seems like you might want to turn your sharpening/local contrast down a tiny bit -- Thennicke (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 10:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Drama! --cart-Talk 10:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support echoing Ikan Kekek's sentiments. —Bruce1eetalk 14:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Easily memeable with the expression "I took him to the mountain and showed him the valley". I can't think of a better illustration for the underlying sentiment. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great dramatic lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Ballroom ceiling (29580926361).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 04:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United Kingdom
- Info created by Tim Green (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by lNeverCry 04:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thanks to W.carter for cleaning this one up (the fixture is very slightly askew, but that's up to the Todmorden Town Hall maintenance crew to deal with) . I still think the colors and patterns are interesting and striking enough to be featured. I appreciate your consideration, and Happy New Year to everyone! lNeverCry 04:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Harmonious colors and well composed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm finding this too unsharp for FP. If the sharpness is successfully upped, I may reconsider, because this is a very nice motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks nice in thumb, but the pixel quality is not at all there for me - very noisy. Some very strange things going on, like the chains, they start out being black at the ceiling, then turn to purple further down? That looks very wrong to me. But a happy new year to you too, INeverCry! -- Slaunger (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, even though I fixed this for you, but Slaunger is totally right. At first it was not only the chains that were purple, but the whole corners and some of the bottom of the pic. I cleaned it up as best I could and I was unsure about what to do about the chains, since it would take forever to clean them up without disturbing anything else. It's not very sharp and it would have ruined the details if I had done any major noise reduction on it. --cart-Talk 17:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination lNeverCry 19:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Rådhuset metro station December 2016.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 09:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Rådhuset metro station, Stockholm. Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Having seen this view a thousand times on my way to work, it has never look as good as in this photo, and yet nothing is added or changed. Well done! --cart-Talk 09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Exposure was too short. The level of blur of the train is disturbing and not well handled. lNeverCry 09:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Info for non-Swedes about the choice of artwork at this station: "Rådhuset" means Town Hall/Rathaus and the partial pillars are symbolizing the ancient foundation for the building above. cart-Talk 09:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- strong support what a great picture of a truly wonderfully designed station! Personally I'd prefer longer exposures but that's just a matter of taste. 1/15 works as well as it provides a better idea and more details of the moving train. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose We have another Featured by you from the same point of view and IMHO better quality --The Photographer 10:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is 2 very different images, due to the different focal length. Regarding the quality, I believe the quality to be good considering that it is a uncompressed 24mp extreme wide-angle image.--ArildV (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also not sure about the two noms. I think, ArildV, you should have stated the other nom up-front. The previous FP has a slight horizontal-perspective issue (see the escalator lights) but handles the lighting highlights better. It is also better for having some people on the escalator, imo. Both have a similar amount of roof, but this one has more of the black floor, which isn't very interesting. The escalator here isn't quite centred in the frame. The train adds a little bit, but essentially we just have the same photo zoomed out a little bit. I would encourage you to consider a 16:9 crop (see note on file page) which will centre the escalator, remove some of the floor, has the floor lines lead in from the corners, and has a more dramatic format imo. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the other FP. Hmmm. I don't know why you shoot and nominate the same subject for FP with only some slight difference and not even in the "set way" where several shots of a subject makes sense. Wouldn't it be more productive to move on and shoot another location? I won't change my vote, but I agree with Colin that you should have declared the other photo in the nom and explained why you think we should have these two versions of the same view. --cart-Talk 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is vey simple, I thought (and think) it was a different images with different focus (more of the station and train, IMO also a more dynamic composition with the lines (train, and the lines in the floor). You can of course disagree. The previous FP was no secret, it was a finalist in last year's POY and I hope you are not suggesting that I tried to hide it consciously.
- Wouldn't it be more productive to move on and shoot another location?
- First: I am not employed by you or WMF for taking pictures. I am a volunteer and do not need to be extremly productive. Furthermore, I believe that it is good to have many images of an object taken during different seasons. I wish all small villages to be as well-documented as Ljungdalen, all the islands as well documented as Landsort and all metro stations as well documented as Rådhuset. I have limited time and often have a camera in my bag, and take photos of the places I visit anyway.
- W.carter: Regarding Landsort; the last nomination from 2016 was from another user. The another from 2013 and 2012.
- --ArildV (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation, it clarified things. --cart-Talk 10:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- ArildV, I wasn't suggesting you "tried to hide [the previous nom] consciously" but even a POTY finalist can be unknown to people who only joined recently, and not everyone will remember the photo as well as you remember your own. It is best to be "up front" about this, so avoid the situation where a similar photo is pointed out only after several people have supported. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- ArildV, I wasn't suggesting you "tried to hide something" too. I can see here how you added the featured category and I'm sorry if my vote was rude, however, it was not --The Photographer 13:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I prefer the existing FP. This one has more darkish areas, too much floor (though it could be resolved by cropping), more disturbing highlights (the lights on escalators, and the reflections on the floor), and also more noise (visible on escalators and the plaque). --A.Savin 11:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with opposition. --Mile (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too similar with the other FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it but ... I am reserving judgement because there is the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--ArildV (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 04:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The tower looks like it's leaning badly to the left. The two jet trails are unattractive.lNeverCry 09:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the edit according to INC`s critic helped? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very useful for VI, but I'm not finding the composition outstanding to move my eye around or view, or to put it another way, the photo is certainly interesting but isn't wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice light, and good technical quality, but many obstructing trees and a general low reading on my wow-o-meter, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Not wowed either; I think my main problem is the diluted sky. It may be how it was that day, but it doesn't create enough of a contrast with the earth tones of the castle and woods. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination - Thank you, guys, for your honest statements. Hereby I withdraw this image. HAPPY NEW YEAR! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Korab 11.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 23:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Anunnakey - uploaded by Anunnakey - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Wrong name, sky noise, green CA in the rocks, composition too simple and vigneting --The Photographer 23:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not comparable in interest to the mountain pictures we've been featuring lately, but The Photographer, what's wrong with the name? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I preffer a more descriptive name like "Korab Mountain, Macedonia.jpg" --The Photographer 02:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Photographer, including the name change. --cart-Talk 08:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per The Photographer. lNeverCry 09:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per unexceptional composition noted by the Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing composition. File name is OK with me, its primary purpose is to be a unique identifier and not be misleading. The description of the subject shall be in the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Radisson Blu in Christmas time.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Radisson Blu in cold Christmas time. Only way to dismiss Freedom of Panorama, and yet its good shot. Krismas tree can be seen inside of a dark hotel. And de-minimis ligths, non part of Xmas lighting. I am done for 2016. -- Mile (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure the freedom of panorama can be applied pics where a copyrighted logo is the main subject of the photo. This file may be a copyvio, hopefully someone may know more about this. --cart-Talk 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Asked, and one didnt have problem. But if you check Radisson BLU, ex SAS, they got even bigger here.1, 2,... --Mile (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the copyright status of the logo in Slovenia. I believe, however, that the US part of the equation is fine, since it appears to consist of words in a common font and geometric shapes ... thus it is ineligible for copyright in the US. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like the idea of this image, but the building's edges aren't clearly defined, so it seems like the logo is floating in space, it just looks weird to me, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, somewhat along the lines of Gamaliel. The emphasized forms just sit there and stop my eyes from moving around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per compositional difficulties noted by others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 18:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created & uploaded by User:Smial - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I like beautiful photos of architecture and nature as much as the next guy and gal, but it's good to have more FPs of people, and I really like this soulful picture of a singer in concert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I love his shirt, his hair, and the obvious emotion of his singing. This is an excellent portrait. lNeverCry 21:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Really the kind of picture you'd wish you could just click the ( > ) button on and get the audio as well. --cart-Talk 22:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Makes a nice pair with this image, also an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I would qualify my !vote, however, by saying that I hope someone can make the pink and purple splotches look like they came from the lighting and not paint dripping off some unseen part of the set . Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Pink/purple LED stage lights are a PITA for photography. The look cool but render differently with digital sensors, where they are often out-of-gamut and easily blow the colour channels. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I agree, we don't have enough FPs of people. Great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support--XRay talk 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --WClarke (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Кањон матка.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 14:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I don't feel like I'm really able to fairly judge this photo without making a high-quality print of it, because I don't think it's at its best at full screen, and I can't view it on my screen all at once at full size. My one hesitation is whether the depth of the view is truly captured in fog. But even so, I'll vote for it on the basis of my initial reaction of "wow" to the thumbnail and my sense that except for the motors on the boats, this looks similar to great Japanese paintings of yesteryear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Surprisingly high quality given the conditions! But please add a geocode. --cart-Talk 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Geotag added.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose technically sound, but I can't see that composition justifies FP status. Charles (talk)
- Oppose The scene has potential, but doesn't quite work for me. The boat is too central; the person onboard isn't striking an engaging pose; nor is the boat particularly photogenic; the harbour seems arbitrarily cropped. I think an FP has to be a great image, not just vaguely remind one of other images. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It definitely has potential but the crop is not really good. I'd probably support a different version with a sustantial crop on bottom and right, and maybe B&W works here Poco2 20:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice mood, but the centered composition does not work for me, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Klagenfurt Welzenegg Krastowitz 1 Schloss Krastowitz SW-Ansicht 29122016 5929.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 07:19:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Austria
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Surely there must be a better place to take this photo from that shows more of the building from ground level not from way down where the building is half hidden? Charles (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Charles. I like the subject and light condition but the composition is not balanced. The tree and fences in the foreground just steal to much attention to the viewer versus the castle in the background. I'd have probably tried to look for a different spot to the right and closer to the castle. Sorry, not convincing to me like this. Poco2 20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The trees don't help the composition: they dominate too much of the left-hand side and are also cut off at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Sorry, it was one of my wrong decisions to nominate this picture here in FPC. I wanted to demonstrate the relation of the name Krastowitz (Slovenian "hrast" means "oak tree") to the oak trees nearby. Perhaps it would have better fit to the VI. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 10:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful pastel colours, great composition -- Thennicke (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Thennicke, and I was just remembering how this was the kind of picture I used to oppose. I guess I'm still not sure this kind of bokeh is my absolutely favorite thing, but if that's what's needed to get this photo of the butterfly, I'm OK with it. And it is pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. You're always going to get a blurred bokeh with a macro, Ikan and DoF is about 2-3 mm. Charles (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Thennicke --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support--XRay talk 16:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support 7. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 19:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Bokeh in macro is always strange, and often can go to banding. This one is OK.--Mile (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Dreamy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support 70mm? 24-70? Jee 15:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, not my usual 100mm macro lens, Jee. I was on holiday, not really butterfly hunting, and had my 24-70 F4 L IS lens which has a macro facility. Charles (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting! Jee 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice bokeh. --Laitche (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Old medina of morocco.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 07:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created and uploaded by محمد بوعلام عصامي - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support A couple of minor technical shortcomings but very convincing otherwise! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The colours are nice but I don't like the cut off corners and doors that makes the images uncomplete, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support I've uploaded a version with perspective correction. The top center of this image is overexposed, but not severely enough for me to oppose. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'm here, to support this very nice old alley in one of peaceful cities in Africa.
thank you very much Mr ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/ for nominating this picture. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Md.Boualam» (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Great colors, great detail and overall great mood. But there are too many things going on in this one compositionally for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much parts which are not really sharp IMO --Llez (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose - I really don't know how much more room there is in this alley. If there was more room behind the photographer, I think that stepping back for a longer depth of field could have improved the photo. I think that was needed for the viewer to feel a greater sense of relaxation in viewing the composition. In this case, I feel tense because all the details seem to be closing in on me. I think that's what Daniel may have meant when he said "there are too many things going on in this one", but for me, it's not that there are too many things; it's that because there are so many things sticking out in a picture with a short depth of field, the parts end up feeling to me as if they are almost the whole, whereas I'd like to see them more clearly subordinated to the long view. I hope that makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse (2016).jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 05:32:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#United_States_of_America
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very serene (apparently not super-windy and cold like it was when my girlfriend and I were driving down Highway 1 a few summers ago), and you really capture the way the light and air look in that part of the world. Well-composed, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 07:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support what a light, what a mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 11:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support--XRay talk 16:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Lovely. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. Charles (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Its leaning to left side. --Mile (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, the building in general isn't in great shape. Due to safety concerns, the lighthouse is currently not open to the public. It's also not clear how long it's going to take until they reopen it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Frank Schulenburg I thought sea should be floating like that ? --Mile (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at it very closely, it's not the lighthouse that's the problem but the sea. It's not perfectly level but tilted a wee bit. Could you fix that please. cart-Talk 11:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I've fixed it. Thanks! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think the fixing needs just a little bit more... --Laitche (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fixed. --Mile (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Interesting twist ... a Pacific Coast lighthouse lit by dawn, not dusk. Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Amazing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 15:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition --The Photographer 10:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. --Laitche (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 10:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Aaron Patterson - uploaded by Fæ (talk) - nominated by Fæ (talk) -- Fæ (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Fæ (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Question - I'm having trouble getting what's featurable about this photo. Do you just find it a really striking face? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose As a portrait (don't know what else it could be) I would like some better DoF and if we want pictures of guys that are focused and "in the zone" for a daunting task ahead of them, well, I've seen better. The bite guard only makes him look freaky, like some cheap version of Hanibal Lecter. --cart-Talk 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 20:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support What a hair cut! ;oD Yann (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 22:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I miss more left side. --Mile (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Easy to do if that is the consensus. I chose to put the eye in the middle. Charles (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Charles how about a right third ? link --Mile (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I most often do that, but here I chose the dominant black neck to be the 1/3. However we crop, there's always a difference of opinion among voters. I used to just leave all my images in off-the-camera 3x2, but most people seemed to want varying degrees of crop! Charles (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Charles how about a right third ? link --Mile (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Easy to do if that is the consensus. I chose to put the eye in the middle. Charles (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support That is one weird-looking bird... Well-balanced, the eye is in the center of the photo, you used a ruler huh. ;) --cart-Talk 10:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Oooh, so crisp. And definitely memeable, although I have no idea what it would say. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Me neither, but it would surely involve the hat maker for some of the British Royals. ;) --cart-Talk 21:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - That's quite a head! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very funny --Schnobby (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- And he belongs to another group if British "Royals". :) --cart-Talk 11:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 18:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Opposestrong CA in the lower part of the branch. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Alchemist-hp: I will fix the CAs tomorrow. --Laitche (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose striked. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Have you no sense of tradition?. Then I was young, Christmas was for subway (not bird photography)! Support when the CA is removed.--ArildV (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- ArildV: I am not involved with Christmas Eve.(^^)v And you mean Martin? --Laitche (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes
- Support--ArildV (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Info Fixed the CAs. --Laitche (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm sorry, but the unsharp branch and twigs in the lower left and center foreground really bother me and distract me from the bird. Because of them, this is not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose On image quality grounds. I don't know if this is relevant to your 7DII, but I tried using the Sigma 150-600 C on my old Canon 60D and found the image quality at 600mm to be much, much worse than on my full-frame 6D. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Alt1
edit- Info Cloned the branches in background and crop change. --Laitche (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm skeptical at times about the ethics of cloning out things that were there. But that said, if you're going this far, why don't you crop out the branch completely? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: Since I don't like the square format of birds photo. --Laitche (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- I know you're not the only photographer here who objects to certain shapes of picture frames per se, but I really don't really understand why. A square is just a shape. The important things are the content and how the elements relate to each other compositionally. But that said, if you crop just to the right of the branch, it won't be a square but will still be wider (l-r) than it is long/tall (top-bottom). In the current version, I will again Oppose because the branch distracts me from the bird, and I care about that, not the shape of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: I nominated the alt2. If crop the left, I think square is better. --Laitche (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Alt2
edit- Info Cloned the branches in background, square format. --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support The sharpness and CA are much improved, and this isn't an overly busy composition like the other alternatives. Excellent! (though small now) -- Thennicke (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 05:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Et voilà - 7. --cart-Talk 10:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support And 8 --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support And 9 -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support And a 10 from the American judge ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Pierres gravées Khumbu.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 17:04:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
- Info created by Gozitano - uploaded by Gozitano - nominated by Gozitano -- Gozitano (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Gozitano (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm leaning toward supporting this because it's so interesting to look at. But could you possibly extend the photo down a little further so that we can see the rest of the stone in the bottom middle? I don't like the sensation of being cut off while moving my eye around the picture frame. Escusez-moi de ne pas ecrire en francais. Il faut tant de temps pour moi d'ecrire choses comme ca en francais. Et soyez le bienvenue ici! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for your welcoming. Sorry, but I am not sure to quite understand what you are asking for. You mean that you prefer I cut the picture like this ?
- No, I would like for the photo you submitted to extend further down, so that the large stone in the middle of the bottom of the picture frame could be seen in full, if that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, Ok. Not possible in fact, the picture is the original framing, sorry.--Gozitano (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, I would like for the photo you submitted to extend further down, so that the large stone in the middle of the bottom of the picture frame could be seen in full, if that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for your welcoming. Sorry, but I am not sure to quite understand what you are asking for. You mean that you prefer I cut the picture like this ?
- Oppose It is an interesting and unusual monument (here on COM:FP) and I would like to be able to support it but it looks overexposed to me, especially the big rock down right. Also for an FP, I would like a bit nuanced lighting and the text to be sharper, the focus is more on the rocks in the water than the text rock. Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 22:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per cart. Overexposed areas of rock and water look like some attempt was made to mitigate it in processing, leaving a sort of artificial look. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 20:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grand-Duc. This image depicts German railroad signals erected on the approach to Meiningen station (Bundesland Thuringia). Due to a slightly fogged weather ambience, we've got a stray light ray that IMHO serves nicely to illustrate the functioning of light signalisation. As I've got really positive reviews on DE-WP, I put this up here for scrutiny. As for a slight blue hue and bright spots visible in the lower half of the picture: I tried to offer the watcher's eyes some guiding towards the reflecting panels of the signals by illuminating them with a LED lamp (contrasting to the road lighting by yellowish sodium lamps). This made some ice crystals on the ballast stones appear as bright spots, too, the ice stemming from the fog freezing at around -2°C. I'm looking forward for any critics. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Grand-Duc (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting idea and hard to catch such beams but I think this would have gone better if you'd skipped that LED light. I don't mind the glittery snow crystals but the blue hue adds yet another color to the landscape and the light makes the reflective surfaces stand out and compete with the red beam for the viewers attention in an unnatural way. A more coherent and warm color scheme would have been better. Unfortunately, part of the beam also coincides with the tree line, that sort of "stops" the beam and messes with it, plus you've got traily stars. For such a dark photo you could have upped the ISO just a bit to cut time. cart-Talk 00:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Quite interesting, atmospheric, and the quality is surprisingly good for a night shot like this. --A.Savin 01:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 02:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - cart's points are well taken, but I also doubt this could be an interesting enough image to warrant a feature, rather than VI/QI. I hope that doesn't come across as unnecessarily harsh: I definitely respect your effort to take an informative photo in the cold, and I think it bore fruit, but as informational, ergo VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Alexander. I'd get rid of the stair trails... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support of course ... a very good image need some opposes too! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Grand-Duc told me of another version of this pic on my talk page, one that I think is more harmonious since it focuses the attention on the beam. It still has the star trails though. cart-Talk 11:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan and Cart. To be FP in my eyes, the composition of a shot like this would have to do an incredibly good job at abstracting the signal and tracks away from the background - as it is, with the yellow sign and the trees in the background, it's too "busy". And mixing light sources is asking for difficulties in post-processing. The image does a great job of showing what it needs to show, but (to me) it lacks "wow", and as Ikan said, is therefore a good VI candidate. Just my 2 cents and I hope it doesn't discourage you from trying more creative images like this -- Thennicke (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This would be great with a landscape format. The rails cut at left is a pity. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I Love people original,and this is original! The stones are fantastic for me with the red light --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart; I think the red beam in the fog by itself might have looked special and distinctive, like a laser beam; I have been struck by some that I've seen recently but was unable to photograph. However, all the other things take away from that. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Uitzicht over Val Venezia vanaf Posto di Avvistamento Pian Venezia 04.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy Nature in Italy.
- Info Impressive views over the emptiness of Val di Venezia from Posto Avvistamento Pian Venezia. All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 10:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Love the way the golden color of the vegetation comes through in the thumbnail, and the tiny waterfalls at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Pleases my eye. Very nice. =) --Ximonic (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Dancing Knight 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2017 at 15:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Question - Is it customary to shield the horse's eyes, so that they are almost completely invisible from the side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Those are called blinders and are used all the time when horses perform in stressful environments. Horses are very skittish and accidents can happen if they are distracted from looking only straight ahead on say a race track or at a show, especially if they perform in a group as the rest of the photos from this event shows. These are very stylish blinders. cart-Talk 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- That makes perfect sense. This is a very picturesque photo. I suppose some people may complain about the lack of more space in front of the horse, but I like the composition, anyway. I Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm wondering about the file's name, is it referring to this act/show or is the horse called "Dancing Knight" (horses can have very strange names...)? Could this be explained a bit better in the description and maybe a better name for the file? cart-Talk 22:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment dear cart-Talk it is referring to the act/show generally there is drum sounds and the knight make the horse dance --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the horse and rider, but the setting looks haphazard and lonely. The dust bugs me a little too. lNeverCry 08:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The setting looks appropriate to me, but I don't like the framing. Normally, you'd want more empty space in front of a moving person/animal/object than behind it. --El Grafo (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per El Grafo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Overprocessed A great picture otherwise, alas. Daniel Case (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the moment a lot, but colors and composition are out, and that people in back. --Mile (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose --Gnosis (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Matheson Hammock Clouds.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Braves6000 - uploaded by Braves6000 - nominated by Braves6000 -- Braves6000 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Braves6000 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
very beautiful but waaaaaaaay too small. Please upload a much larger file, ideally at full resolution -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)per opposers below now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC) - Comment According to the metadata, the camera it was taken with is 24.3 megapixels. The original photograph should have a much larger resolution if you have a copy of it. WClarke (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Added a higher res verion Braves6000
- FPX reason striked now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist-hp -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist-hp, I can see now why it was downsampled. --cart-Talk 08:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose We are so used to rejecting sunsets (actually, as I've said before, this is a dusk, since the sun itself has already set, and I have so categorized it) out of hand for not being distinctive enough that it's a real shame when you see one like this which does stand out from the pack to have to reject it for the obvious flaw of being too unsharp.
I like that the photographer used a long exposure to bring out the color, but I'm a little curious as to why the aperture setting isn't recorded in the metadata, something that might explain whether the unsharpness was avoidable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Japan
- Info Inui-yagura Turret, guarding the outer moat of Osaka Castle and the skyline of Osaka Business Park, Osaka, Japan; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Lovely image, and contrast between the two types of building. I wonder if a 3:2 crop (losing some sky) would be a better format? I'm disappointed at the lack of fine detail at 100%, especially the left/right edge. -- Colin (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Colin and 3:2 it is... you're right, cropping did improve the image. As for the dissapointing image quality at 100%, there's not much I can do now, alas. Suffice it to say, I replaced the 17-40 with the far superior 16-35 4 a couple of weeks ago (after Japan... :-/ ) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Colin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. The crop improved the image substantially. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 05:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I want the Martin's money for go in Japan --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support And I want Martin's new camera equipment. I was hesitating at first because of the sharpness issue to the right (pre new lens), but this juxtaposition of old and new is simply too good to be turned down. --cart-Talk 08:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid I must insist on keeping both equipment and money for upcoming photo projects . But I'll definitely come back to Japan one day - one the most amazing, interesting and beautiful countries I've ever been to! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment fro this reason i want your money! --LivioAndronico (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful composition despite quality-wise and you are welcome to came back and stay in Japan anytime :) --Laitche (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Slightly qualified support Has some slight imperfections—wildly unsharp tree at right and overexposed area on the castle—but overall it is an excellently composed juxtaposition of not only old and new but, by extension, East and West. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 10:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support important, useful, and well executed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't like the shadows from the frame in the top and the left. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Then you will have to take with botticelli since left the shadow has designed him .... for that on the top .... somewhere the light has come. Hovewer thanks Villy Fink Isaksen. --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay and thx - It is only the top shadow then, just like nearly every museum there is problem ved the light at top, some a great shadow. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 14:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Any option to crop as noted, and maybe some +light ? --Mile (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- For the crop i'm not very sure...i like the frame.
For the light i would more opinions,thanks--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done Ok I think you have right for the light my friend, Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- For the crop i'm not very sure...i like the frame.
- Support, assuming that this is the best free image available. If it isn't, we should feature another one. But either way, I consider this a very good photo of the painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Museums are very stingy about changing their light for a shot, even for a distinguished Wikimedia publication. cart-Talk 08:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 07:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by -- LivioAndronico (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 09:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 09:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Simetric problem (top and left are cut more close)Support Fixed now --The Photographer 10:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Crop per note ?--Mile (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)- The crop is incl. in the image too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Buono Nuovo Anno! Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Just for my own edification, I just compared this to 3 FPs of comparable subjects by different photographers. Without naming any of the photographers or filenames, the quality of this photo is clearly better than one of the 3, on a comparable level to another, and the 3rd one is a greater picture but of a larger portion of a different church's ceiling. To me, this is clearly a good FP. Livio, I think you have improved your skills, and we are seeing that lately. Congratulazioni! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 07:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Really nice, but I think it is a bit too much in the grey. I checked and there is room for up-ing the light tones quite a bit and the dark tone some (in Photoshop Light levels: dark to 7 and light to 220) it looks stunning. cart-Talk 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Do you like the image`s tone better now after brightening it up a bit? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah yes! :) Now you can really feel how winter-crisp it is. It also added a bit more depth to it. Thanks, great picture! --cart-Talk 13:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- The gratitude is on my side. Thank you for your positive review. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Really striking composition, irrespective of cart's points, which I have no reason not to trust. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'll support it in any case, it's up to you how much you want to fix it. --cart-Talk 08:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 09:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 09:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support That contrail? is a bit disturbing for me though. --Laitche (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very nice mood. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Now this works. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great shot. Still, I'd have liked to see more on the left than on the right (and maybe a bit less of sky) but this image deserves the star anyhow. Poco2 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 00:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Brazil
- Info All by -- The Photographer 00:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There appears to be distortion at the bottom? Zoom to 100% in your browser and line the step up with the bottom of the screen, then scroll across. I'll support if fixed (or explained, if that's just how the building is) -- Thennicke (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)- Support Looking much better now, thanks -- Thennicke (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Thennicke: Thanks for your observation. It's a Barroque Church from 1500s with severals "imperfections" (currently in restauration), however, the bottom problem was a barrel distortion caused by a lens distortion (I guess). Thanks @Colin: for your thennicke and I think that it's Done, however, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- conditional support Agree with Thennicke that there is some barrel distortion that should be fixed. If you use Lightroom to import photos, you can set it up to apply the lens profile automatically on import. -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Couldnt you cut bottom and start from the step ? I see wires now. --Mile (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good stuff, you kept some real colors.--Mile (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 15:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Arrizala - Sorgiñetxe 02.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 19:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support You beat me to it! I was going to nominate this one when I had a chance. :D Great shot. --cart-Talk 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for all your advice, for me it was just a pile of stones :-) When I was there for shooting, I was hoping that the fog would break up in a more spectacular way. It seems it was good enough. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- De nada. This is truly The Mists of Avalon. --cart-Talk 21:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition and mood. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - To me, this is unusual and special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like that. So would Obelix --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Gora Euskal Herria !--Jebulon (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support What it looks like when a mushroom gets stoned . Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great image! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support WoW --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great composition and atmosphere. Would have probably liked to see a wider image (showing a bit on the right), but still a solid and wowing FP to me Poco2 20:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment} This is Álava, on the right is absolutely nothing :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very good. --Pugilist (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question Is this tilted? The thumbnail gives me the sense that it needs more CW rotation -- Thennicke (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The row of trees suggests that the image could be tilted but I'm quite sure it isn't. The landscape there isn't totally plain and (you can see this if you look in Google Maps), the row of trees isn't limiting a horizontal border but it's a row of trees along a stream that comes down from the mountains (where we're looking to). Another hint are the houses just behind the dolmen: they are straight. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Neophron-1.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 13:34:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Accipitridae (Kites, hawks and eagles)
- Info created and uploaded by Artemy Voikhansky - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I noticed this photo at QIC and thought it was a great shot! -- Slaunger (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 17:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Could someone put what Order goes this !? --Mile (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- w:Accipitriformes, w:Accipitridae - if I understand the question right. But isn't Latin name sufficient? Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is enough for the file's page, I think that Mile is referring to in what subsection on Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds it should go. I have fixed that above. --cart-Talk 12:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is maybe now enough featured images (around 50 or 60 images) in this bird order to create a new gallerie... I will do it soon... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 03:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 18:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - The combination of the quality and direction of the light and the curve in the track helps make this photo special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan and KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Seems much better in full, than thumb. But i miss some more infos...narrow gauge, etc. --Mile (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done I've added some extra information and two weblinks. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the sense of anticipation it creates ... what's going to be around the bend (As it's the start of the year, I hope it's something good). And since it seems both from this and the satellite images to be an internal quarry narrow-gauge track, I am not going to get all uppity about taking pictures from an unsafe location. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful light and scene!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 18:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Liquid
- Info Water droplet laying on a damask textile due to surface tension and low absorbtion of textile. Focus stacking: 24 shots, step 5; Raynox 250. My shot. --Mile (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great idea, well executed. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Slaunger. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support CA and blur at edges ... but so what? Daniel Case (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 10:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Not sure about CA. It could be normal diffraction of the light.--Jebulon (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Cool image. --Reguyla (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Four pears.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 21:23:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits and raw vegetables
- Info created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - fixed by Jebulon - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 21:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A really good quality photo with high EV, arranged in a aesthetic way that also (remarkably) brings a bit of life to this "group photo". -- cart-Talk 21:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm involved in the fixing, but not in the photograph of the fruits themselves. It is a really good work, with a high value. I think it is a FP.--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice collaborative effort, and Happy New Pear! -- Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Thanks to W.carter and Jebulon for the fix-ups. Much better now. — Rhododendrites talk | 00:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great job done. Stunning! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Go Team FPC! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Haha! The Team could have the T-shirts that Rodrigo.Argenton suggested we make from the other version of the pic. --cart-Talk 08:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition, however, I preffer the other one used for Happy new year message --The Photographer 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- That one is just for fun and we can play with that later, this is the real nom of a good photo for articles. --cart-Talk 13:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good idea and quality, it's indeed funny. Can you though offer a version where the left shadow is not cropped? Poco2 20:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Anything is possible with photoshop and I'm sure a version with a more narrow shadow can be created too, but for now people seem to be ok with this so let's leave it be for the time being. --cart-Talk 20:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the way the one on the left looks sort of like that one person in every impromptu group photo who's got to lean his/her elbow on the shoulder of the person next to them, to show how spontaneous it was and what a cutup they are. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speaking of cutups, when this group photo started, there was also a Bosc pear lying down in front of everyone. But it kind of blocked the little forelle and everyone got sick of it. — Rhododendrites talk | 04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe you should consider to build a poster with all your pears ? It could be very nice, IMO (and easy)--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speaking of cutups, when this group photo started, there was also a Bosc pear lying down in front of everyone. But it kind of blocked the little forelle and everyone got sick of it. — Rhododendrites talk | 04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent idea, J! + pinging R --cart-Talk 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- My pleasure, W!--Jebulon (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Excellent idea and high encyclopedic value! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - At certain points, I've wondered why people thought this was such a great photo, but in looking at it again, I find that tilting the yellow Bartlett (the pear on the outer left) to the right is sufficient to create a simple but nice back-and-forth motion with the red Anjou, whose stem curves to the left. That's enough for a good composition of 4 items lined up widthwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it's amazing to see how little is needed to create a dynamic in a photo that would otherwise be rather static. There is also the flow of color change from left to right with the smallest fruit being turned so that it bridges the colors at its sides. Rhododendrites really has an eye for this. cart-Talk 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Northern Lights timelapse.gif, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 23:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
- Info created and- uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- >>>Direct link to the timelapse For some reason the gif is not showing up directly as thumb on all browsers. Anyone know why and how to fix it? --cart-Talk 23:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think the thumb is failing because of a long job queue. Ainali (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah! Yes at 18MB it is a heavy gif file to process. I was comparing it with one of my own gifs but that is only 4MB and is no problem in small size. cart-Talk 10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - That's a great document. It's very small for FP, but because it's a timelapse and not one or more single pictures of the aurora, I think making an exception to our usual size requirements can be justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - One caveat: I would hope that before we feature this file, the time interval of the time lapses will be identified in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This won't display properly on FF, IE, Chrome, Opera, or Safari, on Windows, OS, and Linux (I tested it out with a useragent switcher). I would support this if the display issue is fixed, but I can't support something with a serious technical problem. lNeverCry 02:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Worked on Firefox for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Is changing the user agent really relevant? It doesn't increase the software capabilities if the browser cannot handle it. Works fine on Chrome on Android. Ainali (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ainali (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral per primarily viewing it in Firefox, and also the tendency of some of the Wikipedias to discourage the use of these .gifs when possible because of technical issues like this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
NeutralSupport Impressive, no doubt! I'm just not sure whether gifs like this one belong here as they are a good deal more like movies than stills. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
- Comment - We've judged web videos and animated GIFs here before. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, and (if I remember correctly) I also supported some of these nominations. Still, shouldn't there be another project specifically for that, something like "Featured Movies"? Or should we redefine FPC to evolve into something like "Featured Media"? Not that's its a terribly pressing problem - the number of truly good vids/animations/etc. on Commons pales into insignificance when compared to our massive holdings of excellent still photography --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Someone started Commons:Featured media candidates but there is no nomination process. Ainali (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @W.carter: It displays great at full size, no? lNeverCry 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that really lit up the page! :) --cart-Talk 10:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support It is simply a great picture, however I would also like the timeframe in the description. Looking at the un-traily stars and the airplanes going by I guess it is about a couple of minutes. It would also be great if there was a smaller version of this (below 4MB) as an alternative (linked to under "other versions") so that this can work as a thumb or smaller picture, otherwise it is almost impossible to use this in an article; for that there has to be something else than an annoying little icon up in the frame for the reader to click on. Many Wikipedia editors would love to use this, but as it is now they can't. I think the problem with displaying it here in any other way than full size really illustrates the problem. (Can anyone see it as a thumb here, or even at x300px?) cart-Talk 10:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Display problem solved by Kristian who uploaded a smaller version for use. The original full-screen version is still accessible in the file's history. Now it can be used in articles as well as seen in its full glory. Many thanks! --cart-Talk 11:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- strong oppose IMO animated GIFs have no place in a serious image repository, and are especially unsuitable for photographic animation rather than simple CGI models. This is 2016 and we have video formats now going all the way up to 4k and true colour rather than a palette of 256! See File:Falkirk Wheel Timelapse, Scotland - Diliff.webm for an example video created from stills. The only reason such GIFs are popular on the internet is that Apple killed Flash and we've yet to find a universal alternative for moving images one can't turn off. I would support this if a quality video file was created instead. The GIF here has been reduced in size so that it is only 500x331, which is smaller than an old standard-definition TV from last century. If it was a video, then an HD image would be possible, it could be streamed, and viewers can start/stop/pause/rewind. There's really no excuse for choosing this file format. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Colin makes a strong case for opposing this. I had thought of supporting if this display issue was fixed, but it really wasn't fixed. The creator had to upload a much smaller version instead. I'm going to stay at oppose. I wonder if Colin, Yann, and others would be interested in starting a discussion or RFC on excluding .gif (and perhaps a few other formats) from FPC? I would support that. lNeverCry 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Its good to see it, but i see banding even on this small size. Without, in normal size, some 1080px, this could be FP. For now, maybe Valued Image. But those planes, i got feeling meteorits are flying from the Earth to the sky. --Mile (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
[[:]]
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 14:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Toys
- Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 14:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 14:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Maybe one hand up for New Years and Krismas !? --Mile (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Copyright violation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support not that it would matter... Too bad it's a copyright vio - the image is great though! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Maybe a a copyright violation, but really a great image. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - OK, if we're judging this as a photo, I disagree that it's great, because all those circles of light distract me so much and hinder my eye movement around the picture frame. The Lego gingerbread man himself is photographed excellently, but the background kills the photo for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan (and the copyvio).--Jebulon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 05:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. Jee 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Cam Newton, Joe Webb Dec 2016.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 05:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: People
- Info created by Keith Allison - uploaded by Thomson200 - nominated by Thomson200 -- Thomson200 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thomson200 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Undoubtedly a great moment for the team and its fans, but as a still picture, I find that looking at their jump in this background of a crowd hurts my eyes at both full screen and full size and doesn't result in a good composition, in my opinion. Much less importantly, they themselves are a bit grainy at full size, but that really had no effect on my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 07:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support The composition is fine with me. As for the grain: Well, there's nothing one could do about it, taking the camera settings into consideration (which I don't question at all). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I didn't know that synchronized jumping was a sport? ;) Seriously, any sports event is bound to have a lot of spectators and the photo captures the mood in the arena very well. I don't think the crowd in the background is any more distracting than say a hillside full of small houses as a backdrop in a panorama.--cart-Talk 10:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)- Oppose per Ikan. I can see the attraction of the symmetry of the two figures, but the background completely washes that away. On a less photographic note, I wouldn't be jumping if I was coming to the end of a season that had me chosen as my team's most disappointing player (Super Bowl to fourth-worst passer in the league ... really?) Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum: I would also like to add to my oppose more copyright party-pooping: The Washington NFL team's I refuse to use their name website states explicitly that "Guests may not reproduce any shots for any commercial use without the written permission of the [team]". I have long held that policies like these mean that we cannot consider pictures taken at the sporting events in question to be free images within the terms of Commons, since attendance at games is purely voluntary and, as the back of the ticket always clearly states, you accept those conditions by the act of passing the gate and entering the venue. The only way around this policy is for someone to get that permission, which has been done on the francophone Wikipedia at contests in France, Switzerland and Quebec.
I know this is not accepted broadly within the community and it is not a policy reason to initiate a deletion (yet), but it is enough for me to oppose an FP for this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Trust those big teams to put a dampener on things... Well, with the ridiculous sums they pay their players I guess they have to control their copyrights pretty tight. But if this is like Daniel says, and I have no reason to doubt him, I'll change my vote based on the copyright issue, I want the FPs to be squeaky clean. Oppose Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Question You sure, Daniel? To me it seems that the photographer wasn't just a lucky fan who somehow achieved to smuggle in his supertelephoto lense attached to a 1DX Mark II... I'd guess he had offical permission to take (and later on distribute) pictures directly from the field... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Martin Falbisoner: OK, it seems like he might have had permission. But even still, I find the crowd in the background distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: fair enough! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, I think "House rules" are not enforceable. Jee 03:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jkdavoor: I know it's not as a matter of policy, but by the same token I am allowed to not support images for FP on those grounds. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Addendum: I would also like to add to my oppose more copyright party-pooping: The Washington NFL team's I refuse to use their name website states explicitly that "Guests may not reproduce any shots for any commercial use without the written permission of the [team]". I have long held that policies like these mean that we cannot consider pictures taken at the sporting events in question to be free images within the terms of Commons, since attendance at games is purely voluntary and, as the back of the ticket always clearly states, you accept those conditions by the act of passing the gate and entering the venue. The only way around this policy is for someone to get that permission, which has been done on the francophone Wikipedia at contests in France, Switzerland and Quebec.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 11:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 11:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 11:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thanks Wiki carter for this surprising nomination !
- Support Nice!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support I like it for being different, original, but it doesn't wow me that much. The picture overall could also be improved cropping the bottom a bit to get rid of the open space. Poco2 20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Per Poco, no wow. lNeverCry 02:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the texture ... thought it was beans at first. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose- High technical quality of course, but the composition doesn't really work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I've thought better of my opposing vote. It could be reasonably interpreted as just obnoxious to be the sole opposing vote that just slows down the promotion of a file by acclamation. There were already 10 supporting votes when I voted. I've expressed my opinion. That's enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are a gentleman, Ikan Kekek. But rules are rules, and I'm ready to accept any vote at any time. Especially when the vote (even "Contra") comes from a wise reviewer like you !--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jebulon, that's very much in character for you to say so, and thank you for your good words and sense of fairness. But my decision stands. I will not be a minority of one on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer 16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 12:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Brazil
- Info All by The Photographer 12:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Very pretty, but not quite sharp enough to me for an FP monastery interior. Would you like to try sharpening more? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I applied more sharpening and It was a HDR of 3x(3 exposition +5/0/-5 images), please, take a look what do you think. I know that this lens usually is less sharp than a nikkor 35mm 1.8f or a 50mm 1.8f DX. I am not applying any downsizing to this image. --The Photographer 13:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's definitely better. I'll live with the photo for a while and not vote yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I applied more sharpening and It was a HDR of 3x(3 exposition +5/0/-5 images), please, take a look what do you think. I know that this lens usually is less sharp than a nikkor 35mm 1.8f or a 50mm 1.8f DX. I am not applying any downsizing to this image. --The Photographer 13:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 13:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I thought its Orthodox, with some cyrillic script - IC-XC, but latin in bottom. Interior is more Orthodox, and then i saw its Catholic with mix of Ravenna mosaics. Pretty a mess. --Mile (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mile, This Church has a "particular" design by Adelberto Gressnigt with a Beuron Art School style. Thanks for your remark :) --The Photographer 13:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support But please add a geocode --Code (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support High quality. Charles (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good job, there is not much room for improvement here Poco2 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A positive surprise to see in full resolution, and thanks for not downsampling! Very nice colors and lightning and quite natural looking. Well executed. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 02:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great, great job! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Niedertal, Tirol, Österreich.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 12:02:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Doronenko - uploaded by Doronenko - nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Doronenko (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful, and the erosion on the right side is really interesting: It looks like someone took a big bite out of the ground. Do you have any idea how recent that erosion is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like erosion - a lateral glacial moraine I think. Charles (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose some disturbing burned out areas in the sky Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Some mistakes, but saw camera is older type, good anyway. --Mile (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too cloudy. Charles (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 02:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- weak oppose The image quality makes this unfeaturable to me, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Some blown-out areas, but the overall wow factor is enough for me to overlook the technical issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Not perfect, but enough of it works. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support This image is just ok, maybe excesive sharpening. BTW, I improved the sky noise, however, I reverted myself, if you are ok with this "fix", you could revert again to take my version on top of file history. --The Photographer 23:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think this needs re-processing. --Laitche (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Stunning light! But the quality is quite not up there even though older camera was used. Nice picture anyhow. --Ximonic (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 13:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info With the sun as low as it is here in December, the track became like a divider between light and shadow. -- cart-Talk 13:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 13:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately not very interesting and not very sharp. Charles (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Charles. — Draceane talkcontrib. 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination On second thought, Charles is right about the sharpness. Let's not waste any more time on this pic. Thanks anyway! :) --cart-Talk 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Metnitz Grades Waldbank suedlich der Filial- und Wallfahrtskirche hl Wolfgang 21122016 5761.jpg
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 17:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created and uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose When I first saw this photo, I first thought it might be something I could nominate myself but it didn't quite work for me, mainly because of the upper right quadrant with too many things deviating from the lines and harmony of the rest of the pic. Light is a bit dull too and I keep wanting to move the camera up and to the right a bit, sort of so that an imaginary person might be seated comfortable within the frame. Almost there, but not enough. --cart-Talk 18:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart; perhaps a tighter crop might have worked, or her suggestion for how to recompose the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Buitre negro.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 10:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
- Info created & uploaded by User:Juan lacruz - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Striking bird, in my opinion, well photographed, and educational value due to showing how they pick up pieces of carrion. Top crop may be a little close, but I like the photo enough to nominate it, anyway.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I have added some material at the top, due to the tight crop. If the author does not like, please revert. But I think it is better now. Wonderful sharpness, FP IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm not particularly fond of the bokeh, but the bird's great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thanks J, that settled it. Excellent capture. "Dinner for one?" --cart-Talk 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Not quite as good as the best picture we have in this vein, but it's an FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, Daniel. That capture of the hawk with the vole's head in its beak would be difficult to surpass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I see a strong halo around the bird. Charles (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question - Around what part(s) of the bird? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I see it too, on the neck and the breast, as well as the tail -- Thennicke (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see anything. If anything, I might see something on the head between the top of the head and the beak, but it looks to me like a function of how the light is hitting there. User:Juan lacruz, if you see the halos, would you like to do something about them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The bird appears to be "glowing" compared to the background; the area immediately around the bird (particularly the neck) is too bright compared to the background. I hope this description of the issue is more helpful? This kind of haloing is almost always caused by using the "shadows and highlights" tool too aggressively to brighten the shadows -- Thennicke (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Specifically - too much use of the highlights slider. 09:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, I see the halo.--Jebulon (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thennicke, thanks for explaining what you're seeing. It doesn't bother me that the bird is emphasized this way over the background, but I get your point when you explain it this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose nice, but too much photoshoped!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Current a bit too bright. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Oppose per Charles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info I agree too much shadows and highlights, so I've retrieved the original image and avoided this processing. Please add space at the top for a better framing if desired. User:Juan lacruz
- User:Juan lacruz, thank you for your work. It's good to ping everyone who's voted or commented, so that they can pass judgment on the new version. To save you the trouble, I'll do the pinging: Martin Falbisoner, cart, Daniel Case, lNeverCry, Charles, Thennicke, Jebulon, Alchemist-hp, King of Hearts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Much better -- Thennicke (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 11:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Removing the white spot at the bottom would be an improvement, though.
- Comment - I agree with you. I wonder what that white thing is, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The white spot seemed to be some feathers from other common vultures, it has been removed. User:Juan lacruz
File:Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 04.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 10:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created & uploaded by User:Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think anything I could type would make a stronger argument than the photo itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support @Ikan Kekek and Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the recommendation of my photo!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and thanks for taking these winter landscapes! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support ...and 7... Nice winter mood! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support nice one! --El Grafo (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and lighting. Charles (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I think the saturation slider is overdone on this one, but great composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support It may also be too warm, but a hell of a composition and lighting! Poco2 11:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 10:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info The view of Australia's houses of parliament from Lake Burley Griffin, in Canberra Australia. The wide white building is old Parliament House; the building behind with people walking on its grass roof is the new one. The curved area in the foreground is just a landscaping element.
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mild Support - A bit hazy (is there room for a tad more sharpening?), but what a great composition, with the kayakers in different colored kayaks on each side, in addition to the buildings, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The kayakers are what makes this photo. Not sure sharpening is the fix we need to go for, a bit if more contrast or upping the dark tones might be enough--cart-Talk 11:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @Ikan Kekek: @W.carter: Thanks re. the kayakers. In terms of image quality, the main issue here is heat haze (sharpening won't fix it) - this isn't summer but it's a long focal length and a distant subject. I'll experiment a bit more with curves and the black point and see what I can do to make this really "pop". -- Thennicke (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done -- Thennicke (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support the small boats make the wow.--Jebulon (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Jebulon --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I love the symmetry here. The curved steps up also, for me, sort of evoke the U.S.S. Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor ... I wonder what the architect's intent was, if he had something similar in mind.
I suppose the grayish tint of the background vegetation is that same rare eucalypt you mentioned in your responses to my !votes on your other nominations? Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: That hill in the background is Red Hill, and the dominant flora is Yellow Box-Red Gum woodland, so unfortunately no, it's a different tree. I'd guess it's gone a bit grey because of the volatile organic compounds the trees produce, almost like smog. Eucalypts can be very dull and boring in photographs, sadly. I don't know who designed the curved area -- Thennicke (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The boats are neat. Charles (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 11:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webm, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
- Info created by VGrigas - uploaded by VGrigas - nominated by -- Mile (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting about Wikipedia. So we arent part of Pay per say.
- Support -- Mile (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Interesting --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Now this is interesting. No doubt a very high-quality video, I'm just thinking about the meta of promoting a promotion video for the project. Or should we not overthink this and just look objectively at the quality of it. --cart-Talk 10:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- cart: of course i am not paid PR of a PR. Just how we do here. Unpaid, voluntary, sometimes with sacrifice. Shot thru the screen is sometime hidding the hard part "to get it". Writers, photographers, admins; all is voluntary work. Good to see this video, all those people. --Mile (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I was certainly not suggesting you are doing some paid PR. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?? I was speaking about all of us as a community and if we should promote a promotion of the project we are working on, that is what "meta" stands for. I have nothing against the video, it is excellent work made by volunteers like us. cart-Talk 15:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- cart: I know, see here, just first word. --Mile (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - The video didn't play at all the first time and played with fits and starts the second time, but assuming that's a problem with the software and not the file, I think it's a very good video, and I also think that we can judge Wikimedia videos fairly. As I recall, there was previously a Wikipedia video that was not approved for a feature because it was found wanting in various ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support The best video I've seen nominated here yet, and no I'm not biased by this being an in-house product.
This is a very timely reminder of how what we do, what we all do, is more important than we may be thinking as we do it, especially in this historical moment. And it makes its point subtly but unmistakeably ... the first line is the most overtly relevant, but then the juxtaposition of the general statement of the importance of verifiability in Wikipedia and screenshots of articles about contentious or momentous events from the past year (and just "2016" ... need we say more?) are even louder. You can't ignore the subtext.
And then the images of the community at work ... it really makes me feel proud to be part of this group of people, some of whose acquaintance I have made at Wikimanias past.
On Christmas morning, I chanced to read a letter to the editor of my local newspaper where the writer starts off by recounting a report of a celebrity's apparent death on his Facebook feed, and then, "I questioned the item's credibility, given the person's age and good health, so I looked on CNN.com, then Wikipedia". While one can make sardonic jokes about being associated with CNN given some of that network's recent swoons, I found it interesting that he included us without any apparent irony, and no other media outlet. That's what you earn when you take verifiability seriously, as this video asserts. We've come a long way. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I think you are right, and in addition, this might be a good time for everyone to remember that we are supposed to be subjective in judging whether a photo or video should be featured or not. If we weren't supposed to be subjective, at the very least, we would have a checklist of criteria that had to be checked off, with x-number of checks equaling a feature, or some other boring mechanical process. But instead, "wow" is expressly mentioned as the dividing line between QIs and FPs. And I don't think most of us would be able to agree on objective criteria for "wow", even if we had guns pointed at our heads. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Reading the above, I can throw false modesty out the window and just support this excellently crafted video. It is well paced, the cutting of video flows very well with the audio, the camera work is good (no awkward angles), texting actually timed with some of the music, it uses low-key shots for parts where the narrative is in focus, it provides an overview as well as some nice details. I particularly like the scene when the focus goes from someone editing on a laptop to a guy checking a book for
|author=
and|title=
, a gesture I've done hundreds of times when editing articles, that looks almost too good to be chance. It is a movie shot that could have been scripted and rehearsed, but it is probably just the photographer having a very good eye for capturing things. Good work VGrigas! --cart-Talk 09:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC) - Support lNeverCry 09:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 05:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 10:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
- Info Although he doesn't look too happy at having a bird perched on his nose, he's really OK with it as the oxpecker eats ticks that are sucking his blood. Created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Not perfectly sharp everywhere and there are a few annoying plants in the foreground, but that expression is too good to resist. It also illustrates the symbiosis between the animals well. Could be from a Disney movie. :) --cart-Talk 11:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support From my own experience I'm very much aware of the 100-400L's physical limitations, so I won't critize any technical details. The "expression is too good to resist," to quote cart. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Great capture, but the spikiness of the lighted bokeh grass is distracting me. Maybe smoothing it out more might help, but I'll leave that to your discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support a nice portrait :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 08:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
- Info Agriocnemis pieris, White Dartlet, belongs to Agriocnemis genus of small damselflies (commonly known as Wisps or Dartlets) in the subfamily Agriocnemidinae. Agriocnemis pieris are only 16-18 mm long and one/two mm thick. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 08:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jee 08:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very good for this size of damselfly. Charles (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 11:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice abstraction of natural flora and fauna; in lovely combination of cool colors to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support That is indeed quite remarkable, given its size. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 10:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 01:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
- Info (From David's description) Ferrocarril Central Andino's GE C30-7 1008 and 1009 cross the Infernillo ("little hell") viaduct between San Mateo and Rio Blanco, Peru.
- Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the nomination! --Kabelleger (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Kabelleger: Don't worry, there are more coming (See here)! You take fantastic images! -- Thennicke (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very cool photograph; if you zoom in, it looks like the conductor is waving. WClarke (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 05:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 08:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'll probably be the only one, but I just don't like the cars, especially the one approaching. lNeverCry 09:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: I don't like cars either (I'm a bicycle/train fan) but I found the train and the scenery too stunning here :-) -- Thennicke (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Thennicke: There's nothing you could've done. Timing doesn't always go your way, and that train ain't gonna wait for you. But you may still get an FP out of this, in which case you can have a good laugh at me and the cars... lNeverCry 07:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The cars are bad luck but imo not a deal braker --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This should be zoomed more. --Mile (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Kabelleger always takes interesting shots, and this is no exception, but parts of the photo, especially the cliffs, aren't sharp enough for my taste. I take INC's point about the cars, too: The approaching one is glary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support The train is in focus and thus this stunning scenery works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel Case. I also like that "steep road" sign. Now, that is really steep, better check you brakes carefully before going down that slope! ;) -- Slaunger (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like it. I somehow don't find a problem with the cars. Used to see them on the roads and add some scale. --Ximonic (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Insecto Polinizando. (Mayor Resolución).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 02:06:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 --Ivan2010 (talk) 02:04, 31 diciembre 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ivan2010 (talk) 02:04, 31 diciembre 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not wowed by this. The flower isn't sharp enough, and even a bit blown, and the bee is too small. lNeverCry 09:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'm wowed, considering the tremendous technical difficulties of a motif like this one. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too-tight crop, plus looks a little oversaturated. Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Its nice with the bee in flight. With such a circular main subject, and a such a tight crop at top and bottom I think a square crop would be better. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 23:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
- Info He's not actually very large at 35mm long... All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 23:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Red on green makes a nice contrast here -- Thennicke (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Thennicke --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support And 7...--LivioAndronico (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 11:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 12:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 11:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Lost Coast.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 01:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Outcome of a trip to the “Lost Coast”, which had been on my bucket list for quite some time. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Golden-hour lighting and fog - very nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 07:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 11:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I thought people would object to the nearest rocks being in shadow. I'm glad that's not happening. Lovely photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like „the human face“ in the foreground. ;-) — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 11:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 07:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Others
- Info "Umschreibung" is an art installation by Olafur Eliasson in Munich. Here the spiral stairs are seen from below at night. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wow. Great architectural shot. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thennicke said it. During a conversation a couple of days ago, I was looking online for ideas for cool angles, saying it would be nice if someone made shots similar to this or this angle, and here you are. :) --cart-Talk 11:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I tried once, lying under it. ;) Jee 11:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 11:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I think this composition would probably be greater if it included the entire architectural rhombus/square, but it's nonetheless a really good composition and a very deserving FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support This is not only interesting by its form... It's a perfect combination of colours, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong support per Basotxerri. At first I thought this was a snake. Wow! Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Oops... Cool... :) --A.Savin 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Per Thennicke, Daniel Case and A.Savin — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Unique. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great compo. There is room for improvement IMHO getting the corners at similar distance from the crop or even getting all 4 corners within the picture (I know, I am picky, anyhow the idea is great!). If you don't mind I may give it a try somewhen. Poco2 11:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 06:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport or Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by WClarke; High resolution image of the rusted hull of the Rio Tagus -- WClarke (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great detail of the rust, corrosion, and chipped paint, along with vibrant color that contrasts with the decayed ship. The focus on the rust, as opposed to ship as a whole, is what made it stand out to me. -- WClarke (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Would make excellent abstract art in my living room, I think I'll print it and frame it. :) --cart-Talk 07:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
{{S}}Thanks you WClarke, happy you like it, and best wishes to every ones! Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Though I'm happy that one love my image(s), I would have not nominate it myself, nor likely I would have support this image if photographed by someone else. This is thus logical, that I don't support. Sorry. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, but absolutely no wow and not FP for me, for this rusty and uninteresting "thing". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist. Nothing interesting to me about the forms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per other supporters - although I'd suggest a slightly tighter crop, see note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done cropped a bit Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist-hp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great texture, light and colours. I like the abstract composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per W.carter, again . Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't see nothing amazing here, I'm sorry --The Photographer 13:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alchemist, Photographer. Valued Image would suit this photo better. — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 03:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Himeji Castle, November 2016 -03.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 13:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Japan
- Info Himeji Castle, UNESCO World Heritage Site Ref. Number 661, is a hilltop Japanese castle complex located in Himeji in Hyōgo Prefecture. The castle is regarded as the finest surviving example of prototypical Japanese castle architecture, comprising a network of 83 buildings with advanced defensive systems from the feudal period. Detail of tenshu (keep). All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Weird PoV I think. Charles (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles. Nothing wrong with experimenting and taking a risk, but here it didn't work out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination OK, I guess you're right! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Madinaty.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 12:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created and uploaded by Faris knight - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose insufficient image quality, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ooops, that was me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - insufficient image quality. To the person I'm quoting: Please include your username in your signature, or your vote can't be counted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Insufficient image quality (noise, out of focus, wb...) --The Photographer 13:19, 9 January 2017 (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. |
File:2016.07.18.-65-Westensee bei Nacht Felde.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 12:36:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Schleswig-Holstein
- Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Far too dark for my taste. Charles (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Nights are dark. This is the composition. --Hockei (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It's nice to be challenged with a night shot with the moon as the only natural source of light. I agree with you Hockei that nights are dark, and I like the reflection of the moon in the water surface. But two things: I am not convinced about the composition and the moon itself is one fuzzy looking disk without any structure. I think that for this to work, you should have taken some bracketed exposures, to avoid saturation of the moon for the shorter exposures, and make exposure fusion or an HDR merge to get more details in the darkness and a higher dynamic range. See here and here for two examples, albeit they have several artificial lightsources. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark, per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Panasonic G80.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 07:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
- Info Panasonic G80. My shot. --Mile (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality, no wow, poor lighting overall Poco2 09:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. ~ Moheen (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Light not that good and the top part with the crease in the blanket just above the strap is unfortunate; as are the top messy corners and darker bottom ditto, creating a sort of vignetting. Having a red reflex on the lens makes me think of red eyes. --cart-Talk 12:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree this time --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Kuklica Кratovo.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 15:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Gavrilovski - uploaded by Gavrilovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Umbalanced composition, overprocesed (see clouds border), vigneting, chromatic aberration, noise... --The Photographer 16:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Interesting composition, in my opinion, but a bit noisy, not optimally sharp (oversharpened?) and pixellated (in the sky) for FP. Do you know why it's not displaying at thumbnail size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Last question it's a global wikimedia commons server problem today --The Photographer 17:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining that. I was afraid the problem could have been on my end. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Last question it's a global wikimedia commons server problem today --The Photographer 17:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed. -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry but to me this looks like an old hand colored postcard or something; too overdone. --cart-Talk 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oversaturated And it takes a lot for me to say that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of over-processing and other issues mentioned above | 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. |
lNeverCry 01:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Матка 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 15:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Land seems all hazy. Is the sky original? Charles (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles. Unsharp in a way that doesn't wow me, though others (not so much here, but perhaps on other websites) might like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The haze is playing too many disturbing tricks on this photo + no wow for me. --cart-Talk 18:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose; seems way overprocessed. I not only share Charles' concern about the sky, I would direct the reviewer's attention to that thin edge around the mountains suggesting the sky was heavily edited or perhaps pasted in from a different exposure (nothing inherently wrong with that, to me, but you have to do it well enough that it won't be so easily noticeable. And per Ikan and cart, I get the feeling that the haze was manipulated to the point that it seriously compromised the background (That color, for one, is just unrealistic). Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
File:14-08-14-Tallinn-RalfR-099.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 13:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info created and uploaded by Ralf Roletschek - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Not very interesting. Charles (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles. I guess there's something theoretically poetic about the tower in the middle of the woods, but the forms of these particular woods aren't special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment This tower is situated in the middle of Tallinn and it is part of Tallinn Old Town. So this is a mere illusion, that the location is in the middle of the woods. Before seeing this image I would had not thought it to be even possible, that there could be something like this captured on a photo. Tallinn isn't like Tartu, that looks like a forest, when seen from above (that should give an idea). There really are not that many trees in Tallinn. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak support Works for me because the tower is off-center. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Like Charles I don't find this interesting enough. Composition-wise, it might have been better if the sea and the top of the houses weren't visible, that would have given the whole thing a more minimalistic tone so you could focus on the tower in a "sea of green". Sorry. --cart-Talk 20:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose As opposition. --Mile (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Sommet du Ngozumpa tse.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 10:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info created by Gozitano - uploaded by Gozitano - nominated by Gozitano -- Gozitano (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Gozitano (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Gozitano, there are a lot of dust spots across this picture. You need to clean them before your photo can be fairly judged. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I will come back later--Gozitano (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Gozitano (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Gozitano while you are fixing the photo, could you also remove the purple fringing along the ridge of the mountain and the green and purple chromatic aberration around the patches of snow. These things are most prominent on the left side. cart-Talk 14:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Vesuvius from Monte Somma (Panorama II).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 14:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info created by HylgeriaK - uploaded by HylgeriaK - nominated by HylgeriaK -- HylgeriaK (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe tilted clockwise... --Laitche (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting is in the wrong direction; here the sun is behind Vesuvius causing it to be illuminated poorly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 21:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Mild oppose Impressive view, high detail level. The photo appears to have a slight CW tilt, and the lightning on Vesuv is a tad too unfortunate for my taste. Nevertheless, thanks for the view! -- Slaunger (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per King and Slaunger; the sky looks weird. Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: 4 days since nomination - 4 opposes and no supports. Lighting issues. | 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. |
lNeverCry 05:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2017 at 03:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'd support this even without the tower. lNeverCry 03:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per INC. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jee 06:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very high-quality and serene. I might prefer to see the treetops on the left, but I won't decline to give a supporting vote based on that difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your praise Ikan. I agree about the treetops, it would have helped the composition even more - still learning how to take the perfect photograph! :) -- Thennicke (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice. This is what we refer to as "a well-manicured park". :) A geo tag would be appreciated though. --cart-Talk 11:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done -- Thennicke (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. --Laitche (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a particularly remarkable scene from an urban park, with flat midday lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as per KoH. In short, no wow. Specially I find the grass unattractive. Sorry. Yann (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I disagree with my colleague because this is for me remarkable composition/scene, however the color don't work for me, especialy the color of the grass. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Question Christian Ferrer Would better processing fix the issue, or is it an issue with the scene itself (such as the dead patch on the left)? I can try reprocessing the image if needed -- Thennicke (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- No it is well processed, it is because the grass is near dead.... I don't think that you can do anything else. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh, fair enough. Canberra is a very dry windy city and I guess the grass reflects that. I'll leave the nomination up though -- Thennicke (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Christian. Color just seems washed out to me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Info I have added a version with less washed-out colours. Let me know if I've overdone it -- Thennicke (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Always ping everyone who's voted or commented when you edit a photo that's submitted to FPC. For my part, I'm fine with either version, but it's up to you to decide which one most closely resembles what you saw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the composition (though I'd likely crop a bit tighter at the bottom) and I'm sure there is potential in this place for FPC. But as others already pointed out the timing wasn't ideal. I don't think this is something that can be "fixed" in post - only by coming back on a "better" day. (also, in the current version, the blue of the water looks a bit too punchy for me) --El Grafo (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I think a more wider (pano) view will be better for this kind of a park scenery. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Beach - San Agustín.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 19:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas#Spain
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful lighting and clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very nice light, good composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice lines in the sand. WClarke (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose - Too many uninteresting hotels for my taste, but there's a way you might be able to crop the photo that could change my mind: If you crop just to the right of the fluffy cumulonimbus cloud (or if you prefer, to the right of the right-most palm tree), thus eliminating the nearby hotel from the picture, I might find the photo interesting enough to feature, although I can't quite guarantee it. My feeling is that the most interesting things in this photo are: (1) the nearby beach up to the cape; (2) the clouds, or most of them. Almost all of the buildings are quite uninteresting, in my opinion. I tried to add a crop suggestion, but it's approximate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I find the plant in the foreground annoying. Charles (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing wow for me here. I don't like the palm in the foreground. Moreover I'm not sure about the colour change in the sea in the left (stitching error?) and a little bit blurry horizon. I also agree with Ikek. — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support While I understand where Ikan is coming from, and I'd thus usually cite the same things for an oppose, here they do not bother me. The eye is drawn to that little sand spit in the center despite them. If I were a photo editor looking for images to illustrate a travel brochure or website, I'd seriously be considering this one (in fact, I think, cropped to the usual 7:1 size it would make a great Wikivoyage banner for the right page). Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opposes - the crops of the palm and the clouds are unfortunate -- Thennicke (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Thennicke. A good picture nevertheless.--Jebulon (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately it was not allowed to log the palm before taking the photo ;-) --Llez (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- LOL!! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Per Ikan. Thanks for the laugh Llez -- Thennicke (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately it was not allowed to log the palm before taking the photo ;-) --Llez (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support @Llez you must use secretly in the night this anti-palm-and-tree-thing: File:M-ms241cbem-l001.jpg. This item is additional a standard equipment for a Wikipedia photographer ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, within the next days I will buy a complete lumberjack equipment for panorama photography ;-) --Llez (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Cathédrale Saint-Étienne d'Auxerre - Interior.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 20:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, windows at rear blown. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly, for many churches an FP may not be possible without HDR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose And not that sharp, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Diliff is the gold standard for church interiors. He managed to pick near-perfect settings for the entirety of many of the interiors he shot, so that just about everything looks sharp and vibrant. This is a respectable photo that captures part of the feeling of being in this cathedral, which I've visited. But it's not one of the crème de la crème of cathedral interiors on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 17:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Nadar - uploaded, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very difficult restoration for a portrait of an interesting person. Carlos, Duke of Madrid (1848-1909), Don Carlos de Borbón y de Austria-Este, was the carlist claimant to the throne of Spain (Carlos VII), and at the same time the legitimist claimant to the throne of France (Charles XI), as the elder male heir of the Capetian dynasty. He did not success, neither to conquer the spanish throne (in spite of several wars), nor to be seriously recognized as "king" of France. This photograph is by Nadar (photographer), restored (with many difficulties) by me. The original can be seen as first upload, as I usually do, for comparison. And remember: smoking kills !-- Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Good portrait. Thanks for restoring it and nominating it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great restoration of a portrait very much of the era when smoking was the thing to do if you were a man of the world. I love such little anthropological markers in photos. --cart-Talk 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks. There are several similar porraits from the same series of this prince. I chose this one because of this detail !--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak support Not the max but good --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support well done restoration --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Gare Du Nord Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 20:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Thanks for nominating another of Diliff's panoramic interiors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Uneven crop. Much more space on right side. lNeverCry 21:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support per INC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many ghosts for my taste, inevitable when using the Diliff technique for this type of subject. maybe the wrong tool in the toolbox for this motive? -- Slaunger (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose For me the light "path" at the bottom acts like a barrier for the rest of the photo and the cut pillars are also distracting from the harmony of the pic. See crop suggestion for a cleaner view. --cart-Talk 07:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, the suggested crop might improve a lot! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing is clearly seen, tilted. --Mile (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm OK with it as is. Cart's crop would not hurt it. But without the shutter speed in the metadata I don't feel like I can fairly evaluate this image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Do you ever get that feeling, especially with works by a pro like David, that perhaps he considered FPC himself and decided against it, or planned to nominate it after some fixes, etc? I once successfully nominated a photo by Diego, but I asked him first, and only after Colin had mentioned the image as a good FPC possibility. I figured I was in safe territory with that one... lNeverCry 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @INeverCry: Oh, I do. But usually in those cases he lets everyone know. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 15:30:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info In the town I live in, we have a peculiar lamp shop, hidden in an industrial area in the outskirts of the town, called EM Belysning. Since 1990, they have specialized in lamps, and according to their web page, the owners claim to have collected 40,000 lamps over the years! The area of the shop is quite small, and the lamps are incredibly crammed. In every direction you look, there are lamps, lamps, lamps, it is like entering a cave of lamps. The aisles are narrow, and you easily bump into a lamp when going around, triggering a chain reaction of bell-like sounds. I asked and got permission to make a photo shoot in the shop the other day. The results are here. After careful consideration and after receiving some encouraging remarks from cart, I now nominate this one. Let's see what happens. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This is a daring nomination, because this is the kind of picture that I'm expecting at least a few people to call "too busy". Busy it indeed is, but what it doesn't lack is interest and places to move around for the eyes. If you want to compare any photograph from life with abstract painting, consider this one - but the comparison would be to complicated abstract paintings, not minimalist paintings. P.S.: I would be interested to hear from you, Slaunger, on how you decided where to crop the photo, as you undoubtedly had quite a lot of choice in the matter. What were your criteria? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: : Thanks for you detailed and encouraging review. I did put a lot of consideration into the crop; Unlike the usual convention used by most including myself, I deliberately cropped it such that you get the impression of an abstract 'sea of lamps', by cutting as many lamps as possible and maximise the clutter. The original format was portrait, and I have cropped a lot below as it showed some of aisle area and boxes with lamps. It was either that or showing an aisle in its entirety, that made the most sense for me if I wanted to convey what it feels like to enter that shop. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Those are both interesting photos. If you decide to nominate the other one later, I'd suggest a crop on the left side to eliminate whatever is sticking out as a triangle toward the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: The "triangle" is - of course - a lamp! But good point, it could be cropped. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I would have thought, indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: The "triangle" is - of course - a lamp! But good point, it could be cropped. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Those are both interesting photos. If you decide to nominate the other one later, I'd suggest a crop on the left side to eliminate whatever is sticking out as a triangle toward the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: : Thanks for you detailed and encouraging review. I did put a lot of consideration into the crop; Unlike the usual convention used by most including myself, I deliberately cropped it such that you get the impression of an abstract 'sea of lamps', by cutting as many lamps as possible and maximise the clutter. The original format was portrait, and I have cropped a lot below as it showed some of aisle area and boxes with lamps. It was either that or showing an aisle in its entirety, that made the most sense for me if I wanted to convey what it feels like to enter that shop. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support More congested than our typical scrapstores! Jee 16:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I love these crazy, cluttered lamp store shots! You can look at them forever and still find something new. --cart-Talk 17:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, doesn't work for me. These "cluttered" shots are hard to do well, and here I just don't find the arrangement aesthetically pleasing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like how eclectic the subject is- there is a lot going on, in a positive way. Nice description too; I've been to some similar shops in the United States, along with flea markets, that have the same feeling captured here. In the set I also liked #8 and #9. WClarke (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support It works for me amazingly. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per King. This is not clutter that works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support absolutely --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't work at all for me. Charles (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support typical lamp shop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose In my opinion, the mess should be taken in more artistic way. — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks to all reviewers so far for taking your time to review the nomination. Uhh, a swing state nomination, exciting! But also thanks for another thing; I really appreciate that so far all reviewers have respected votes opposite to their own and not tried to put a pressure on a change of mind. That's how it should be, assessing photos is not an exact science, and all opinions are valid IMO. Not that discussion should be discouraged, but opinions respected. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 03:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 16:39:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info Tatev monastery during sunset, Syunik Province, southeastern Armenia. The Armenian Apostolic monastery, built in the 9th century, hosted in the 14th and 15th centuries one of the most important Armenian medieval universities, the University of Tatev, which contributed to the advancement of science, religion and philosophy, reproduction of books and development of miniature painting. All by me, Poco2 16:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 16:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Cutoff of the pylon on the left is slightly annoying to me, but no way would I withhold a support vote over something that's so trivial in the context of a big panorama like this. It's amazing how picturesque the locations of many monasteries in Armenia are! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support, some unsharpness in various areas due to either motion blur or corner falloff but still very nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The scenary is fantastic and the the monastery looks very good, but also slightly artificial. I feel the image is slightly oversaturated, and the chroma noise in the clouds supports this. I am not bothered by the motion blur in some of the vegetation. It is not important for the overall visual impression of the image. -- Slaunger (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Will look into the raw file tomorrow, Slaunger, but I don't really feel that it is oversaturated. Will surely reduce the noise Poco2 16:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose composition; gondola, electric cables, church. They dont go together. --Mile (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support per Koh --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak support per Martin per King. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it very much in general. But in details, some things prevent me to support. Slaunger is right, Mile too. I think the site can wait some years, until the end of the restauration work...--Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I just uploaded a new version with following rework: increase of contrast, tilt, noise reduction and left crop. Poco2 19:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Things I don't like: lighting, tones, vegetation, construction and point of view. Especially on the last point I very strongly feel this is not the best angle available, down the road to the left provides a more pcituresque composition within a single frame (not that I have anything against panoramas). The reason I'm voting neutral instead of oppose is I'm planning to upload a pic on the same subject when time permits the ps work to be done, and opposing this just feels wrong. :) KennyOMG (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The new edit has convinced me to support. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 10:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
- Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 10:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 10:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support as decided when I saw the early nom. Jee 13:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Like I said, thanks for nominating this one. --cart-Talk 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm giving this one a big hand (sound of ducking under desk quickly) Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 03:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I think it's better than the vertical one -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 08:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info View of the chamber below the windcatcher of the Golestan Palace, used today as a photographic museum, Iran's capital city, Tehran. The UNESCO World Heritage Site belongs to a group of royal buildings that were once enclosed within the mud-thatched walls of Tehran's arg ("citadel") and is one of the oldest of the historic monuments in the city. All by me, Poco2 08:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 08:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Another beautiful one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 11:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question The asymetri is because the picture was not taken from the center? (see note) --The Photographer 12:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, The Photographer, it looks like I was a few centimeters off to the left. I tried to apply some perspective correction but the result was no improvement Poco2 16:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer because I had feeling that It was not a perpesctive problem, thanks for the clarification --The Photographer 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great Diego - how fitting for FPC that your first nomination this year is an image of a photography museum, a place to admire and assess pictures. Speaking of assessing images, maybe you'd like to become again more active in the admittedly tedious process of evaluating other nominations here? Your expertise and input would be much appreciated! Frohes Neues Jahr und Gut Licht! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, Martin, I promise to be more active after one week at least until the next row :) Poco2 16:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 13:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 17:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The Iranian mullahs should get that fountain going again; otherwise people are going to think it's some sort of incongruous phallic monument. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- You have something against linga stones? ;) --cart-Talk 23:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't. But the conservative Iranian government might. Daniel Case (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Mile (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 03:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Excellent Picture. --Gnosis (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 14:01:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info Vanessa indica, Indian Red Admiral, is a butterfly found in the higher altitude regions of India. Males commonly imbibe mineralised moisture from damp ground, and also visit dung or decomposing fallen fruit. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 14:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Taken along with this so had though not to nominate. Now reprocessed with Capture One 10 and looks fine for a try! Jee 14:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Impressive! Happy New Year, everyone! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- You too! Jee 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 17:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support But I bet we could crop to a more even amount of space at the top and get rid of a lot of that unsharpness at the top to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. If more people suggest the need for a crop, I'll remove some space as suggested. Jee 05:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, I made an HD crop as suggested. Pinging early supporters too. Jee 06:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. The crop was a good idea and improves the photo, because the previously larger amount of unsharp background wasn't adding anything great to the picture, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 03:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 22:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 07:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Crop per note ?--Mile (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Where's your note? I'd like to see your proposed crop. I like this photo, but I'm not sure whether it's up there with the greatest church FP interiors. I could imagine a sharper nave in the foreground, such that we could read the inscription, which for me mostly peters out after "Joanni XXIII Pontifice Maximo" (I can also read the last line). Perhaps the painting on the altar might be a little clearer, too. Overall, very good and certainly wouldn't be out of place as an FP; it's probably only the excellence of other FPs in this category that's giving me a little pause. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You can see the note after opening the nomination page and placing the cursor over the image. Jee 03:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support it is ok for me, without a crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good. Please do not crop. It's better with the uncropped chairs. --XRay talk 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per above, no crop, please (and if any with an alt version), Poco2 10:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 15:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Rallidae_.28Coots.2C_rails_and_crakes.29
- Info |c|u|n| by Laitche (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Wow --LivioAndronico (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I don't like that unsharp conifer cone, or whatever it is, but I had to look at this photo for a while to recognize that the upside-down bird on the bottom is a reflection of the moorhen, because it's so clear. Beautiful bird, seamless composition, special photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: That conifer cone is a lotus and all dead grasses in background are lotuses. --Laitche (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well there you go - it's so unsharp, I confused a lotus with a conifer cone. I consider that the only real drawback of an otherwise great picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan, The focus is all on the bird, that makes objects behind it unsharp, the same goes for any object at the same distance in front of the bird. Now, you don't seem to mind the unsharp lotus stems, the unsharp lotus seed pod is the other side of that coin, a sacrifice that has to be made to get the bird and reflection (the reflection being at the same distance from the camera as the bird) looking this good. The only option to get the seed pod sharp as well, would be focus stacking, but that's near impossible for such a shot. cart-Talk 16:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I have a different reaction to unsharp background, which is anyway readily recognizable as stems, than to somewhat obtrusive unsharp foreground. It just feels much more intuitive to me for background to fade. If something is so close to my eyes that it's blurred, I find the sensation uncomfortable and back up. Anyway, I fully take your point that this was necessary in context, but to me, that makes it a necessary evil, not something per se good. You might agree with me that if all that was in the photo was unsharp foreground, you wouldn't support a feature, but of course that is not the case! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not saying it's a good or bad thing, just explaining the physics of it. Cameras have yet to catch up with what the human eye can see and the brain can process. At least at your age, just wait until you get older and things in the foreground starts to get blurry too. ;) cart-Talk 19:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support WauW - GREAT --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Like an old-school screen painting. --cart-Talk 16:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The background is too cluttered (and not sufficiently blurred) to see the subject clearly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- --Laitche (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think that a {{Neutral}} maybe would be better for you (calculating the difficulty of the shot and your reasons) --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Before I voted, I googled the bird to see what other pictures looked like, and most of them had the subject clearly isolated from the background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think that a {{Neutral}} maybe would be better for you (calculating the difficulty of the shot and your reasons) --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Marvellous reflection and crispness, and I like the geometry of the background vegetation. -- Slaunger (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support wow! great job! Kruusamägi (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Amazing! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per King. Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I have met, when there is water, people want to get reflexion in any given case, like reflexion is more important than main subject. I would crop. --Mile (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support a bird in his true habitat. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 11:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Laitche Put Order above. --Mile (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Laitche fill-up the category. --Mile (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- ??? --Laitche (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Gruiformes > Rallidae Jee 13:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Jee. --Laitche (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Gruiformes > Rallidae Jee 13:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- ??? --Laitche (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak There is a lack of subject isolation, as noted by KoH. It's just too busy for me -- Thennicke (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 04:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative
edit- Info Color and contrast adjustment by Christian Ferrer. --Laitche (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question - I don't know how to choose between these two versions. Laitche, which one do you think is most true-to-life? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: I think Christian's edit is not bad (the shadows are a bit clipped though) and I don't remember which colors are more close what I was seeing... Then I don't mind whichever you like. --Laitche (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Well, since I really can't pick between them, I'll Support this version, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support just in case... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Just for info my edition is mainly firtsly a highpass filter and then adjusment of color and contrast. All in purpose to highlight the bird. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I like the subject details and surrounding habitat. But the reflection didn't work for me as it is too crowded. Further there is an object (leaf part?) over the legs in the reflection. I prefer a landscape composition with lead room in left and more head room (without that reflection). Jee 04:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Still too busy. lNeverCry 04:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Barania Góra - view from tower.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 09:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Poland
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pudelek : Šljun Polsky, Češky ?! A je to.. --Mile (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- ??? --Pudelek (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Silesia is in Poland, and Czech. Which one is this !? --Mile (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- In Poland. Barania Góra --Pudelek (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Silesia is in Poland, and Czech. Which one is this !? --Mile (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This was on my list of photos to nominate, too. It's my idea of a perfect winter wonderland, complete with accompaniment of the "Winter Wonderland" song in my mind's ear. The evergreens heavy with snow, the snow field, the mountains in the distance and the sky all contribute to the picture, but I think it's the snow-laden trees and their placement in the picture that really make the biggest difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support It looks better the bigger it gets. --cart-Talk 13:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 13:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support This is a really beautiful winter landscape, especially with the mountains in the background.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Foreground is good, but the hills in the background are excellent. Charles (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Though I'll make my usual suggestion to try a 16:9 crop (central) which I think improves it. -- Colin (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Lovely Poco2 20:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak oppose Good things first: Nice landscape, I really like the texture of the snow trails and the background is really great. What does not work for me is. 1. White balance: It is a tad too cold/blueish in my opinion. I tried downloading it and play with and nudging the temperature up a bit gave a less artificial look in my opinion. 2. Too contrasty. People are basically just black small blobs, and some semi-harsh shadows. 3. Exposure control of the flat snow-covered surfaces. I realize it is very diffucult to photograph snow, but although there is a lack of structure and texture in the smoother parts of the snow landscape in my opinion, as if it was slightly overexposed. Technically speaking there is no clipping in the histogram, but it stops abruptly as if an attempt has been made to salvage details in postprocessing. All in all, a fine image, but not among our very finest in my opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose +1 to Slaunger's criticisms (reminds me of how my old DP/S used to handle this sort of scene, oddly, when I chose the "snow" setting from its menu); I also feel there's too much going on to settle on any one aspect as the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I find this well-composed and it's processed quite well considering the direction of the sunlight -- Thennicke (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support After reading opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support before reading all the other votes! I have my own opinion ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Cúpula de Edificio Bencich.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 13:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Architectural elements#Windows
- Info created/uploaded by Eizuel - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 13:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the symmetry -- Ezarateesteban 13:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I was struck by this in QIC, where I promoted it. We're viewing buildings through the big windows of an empty room of faded glory. It's the stuff of poetry, really. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. Looks like an ironic take on the sort of shots you see in shelter magazines ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 18:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The frames within a frame work well. I like the lost glory of the room. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Simply great. I love these #Abandoned photos. --cart-Talk 20:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting; but I prefer strong permissions for works coming from established sources. Jee 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Very interesting composition. Is there a way to fix the tilt/perspective (right side only is leaning in) Poco2 09:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 11:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info Theatrical Artwork by @Laura Fiorucci: . Picture by -- The Photographer 11:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info This was one of the best theaters in Latin America, I traveled a whole day to attend this work with Beria User, one of the last before it was taken by the dictatorship of Venezuela to hold political pseudo-art events. --The Photographer 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Very good picture of the soloist, and good picture overall. However: (1) There are little spots all over the picture. Dust on the lens? In any case, please remove them. (2) I'd rather see the hand of the dancer on our left than the empty space on the right, if that's a choice, though the space is kind of nice. If that's not possible, I think the photo could still be featurable, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I was trying to force the rule of thirds and I did not realize I was making a cut background, now it is fixed. BTW, I tried remove the bizzard noise or dust on the lens, please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 12:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - There are still a few tiny white spots here and there, but this version is a really harmonious picture with what I consider a great composition, and I give it my strong support for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Please sir, could you add a note to remove the white spots? I almost blind myself trying to eliminate it --The Photographer 12:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I gave it a try. They're really tiny. The area on the left probably extends down a little; the area on the right, probably a bit further to the right. I don't think it's crucial for you to zap them all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help, I think that now is better. I know that it's not crucial, however, i love a perfect image. Thanks for the review --The Photographer 13:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If you want to be really perfect, I see 6 really tiny specks above the soloist's hands, forming a triangle above her left (viewer's right) hand and a much flatter one starting above her right (viewer's left) index finger. I think you zapped all the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, now it look "perfect" :). I remember that this shoot was in really poor light conditions maybe that is dust in the aire creating a reflex with the light, I don't remember (Or simply censor camera noise) --The Photographer 13:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If you want to be really perfect, I see 6 really tiny specks above the soloist's hands, forming a triangle above her left (viewer's right) hand and a much flatter one starting above her right (viewer's left) index finger. I think you zapped all the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help, I think that now is better. I know that it's not crucial, however, i love a perfect image. Thanks for the review --The Photographer 13:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I gave it a try. They're really tiny. The area on the left probably extends down a little; the area on the right, probably a bit further to the right. I don't think it's crucial for you to zap them all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I was trying to force the rule of thirds and I did not realize I was making a cut background, now it is fixed. BTW, I tried remove the bizzard noise or dust on the lens, please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 12:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it but before I !vote I want to know what Venezuelan copyright law says about whether the picture can be a free image or not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- citing @Fæ: In Venezuela the show producer's rights for reproduction of the performance in photographs or recordings works in a similar way to most other countries (such as the US or UK), going by the explanation given in Chapter II (Performance Contract) in the Law on Copyright, 1993.[1] The costume and stage design rights are reasonably assumed under the show production rights, it is these that would need validation. A release providing evidence of this via OTRS, or a statement about this performance elsewhere (i.e. an official event website which explained how photography is allowed at the event) would be sufficient. And BTW, you can see the author @Laura Fiorucci: (Admin on wp-es) commenting here --The Photographer 16:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I knew we'd gone over this with respect to Venezuela before. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hola, @The Photographer: Sí, la obra es mía, fue estrenada en el Teatro Teresa Carreño en 2013 y puesta de nuevo en 2016. Agradezco a The Photographer las hermosas fotos que hizo de mi obra. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- De la misma manera muy orgulloso de haber sido invitado a tan majestuosa e impecable obra y haber conocido a tan humilde, talentosa e inteligente mujer! --The Photographer 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hola, @The Photographer: Sí, la obra es mía, fue estrenada en el Teatro Teresa Carreño en 2013 y puesta de nuevo en 2016. Agradezco a The Photographer las hermosas fotos que hizo de mi obra. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I knew we'd gone over this with respect to Venezuela before. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- citing @Fæ: In Venezuela the show producer's rights for reproduction of the performance in photographs or recordings works in a similar way to most other countries (such as the US or UK), going by the explanation given in Chapter II (Performance Contract) in the Law on Copyright, 1993.[1] The costume and stage design rights are reasonably assumed under the show production rights, it is these that would need validation. A release providing evidence of this via OTRS, or a statement about this performance elsewhere (i.e. an official event website which explained how photography is allowed at the event) would be sufficient. And BTW, you can see the author @Laura Fiorucci: (Admin on wp-es) commenting here --The Photographer 16:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Very good but I compare with your first upload and there's a loss of detail to the main dancer. The highlights are lost on her dress front -- you could see sequins shining against the cream colour, now it is all bright. Also, to incorporate all of the left dancer, I suspect you've been a bit creative with Photoshop and the dancer's friend has lent a hand! It's well done, but should be documented on the File Description page. I'm puzzled about Ikan's complaint about white spots. In the previous versions I can only see them if I turn up the brightness/gamma in my image program -- they are barely visible let alone troublesome normally. I wonder Ikan if you have your monitor adjusted properly and displaying blacks as black rather than dark grey. While these dots are visible also in the earlier noisier versions of the file, they are hidden among the noise. It certainly isn't dust on the sensor (which appears as large semi-transparent blobs) or the lens (which is effectively invisible as it is totally out-of-focus). If it isn't just also image noise that escaped your NR software, then it may just be dust in the air lit up by the stage lights, and in that case, part of the scene. -- Colin (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Colin Nice review like always, I restored dress details. About the white dusts, I don't remember any special effect or light effect in the presentation. Please, Colin, let me know if this change is ok for you or if I need do something. I added retouch template information (I forgot it, however, I docummented each change in the history less the hand cloning) Thanks --The Photographer 21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support now. Your local brushwork to darken her dress is a little crude but only at pixel peeping magnification (it spills a tiny bit onto her chest). -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: Maybe now it is done, also I fixed severals micro pixelation and sharpening problems in her face, I added another tone level. Please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: Maybe now it is done, also I fixed severals micro pixelation and sharpening problems in her face, I added another tone level. Please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Colin, the front of the stage (below and in front of the surface on which the ballerinas are dancing) sure looks black to me, as does this type, so I'm clearly able to perceive black on my screen. Just thought I'd address that, for what it's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support now. Your local brushwork to darken her dress is a little crude but only at pixel peeping magnification (it spills a tiny bit onto her chest). -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Colin Nice review like always, I restored dress details. About the white dusts, I don't remember any special effect or light effect in the presentation. Please, Colin, let me know if this change is ok for you or if I need do something. I added retouch template information (I forgot it, however, I docummented each change in the history less the hand cloning) Thanks --The Photographer 21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Muy hermosa foto, @The Photographer: , justo en el momento donde la bailarina está en quinta antes de seguir con la variación... es un momento tan corto... El light effect puede ser que es una escena muy oscura y atrás están los molinos iluminados tenuemente ¿será eso?. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Es mas como una especie de microbolitas o lentejuelas volando. Eso formó parte de la escena?, yo no me acuerdo. --The Photographer 22:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Es posible que sean restos de alguna producción anterior que hayan quedado atrapadas en el puente 2 de luces. Muchas veces caen las de El Cascanueces, que son como cuadraditos plateados de 2x2 cm muy brillantes. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Es muy probable que haya sido eso, justo en ese momento bajaron, la incognita comienza a resolverse --The Photographer 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Es posible que sean restos de alguna producción anterior que hayan quedado atrapadas en el puente 2 de luces. Muchas veces caen las de El Cascanueces, que son como cuadraditos plateados de 2x2 cm muy brillantes. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Es mas como una especie de microbolitas o lentejuelas volando. Eso formó parte de la escena?, yo no me acuerdo. --The Photographer 22:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Splendid now. --cart-Talk 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 02:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great image and although hard to appreciate here great coreography by Laura, member of WMES and long-time and well-known admin in es.wp. Poco2 09:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support perfect with a lot of wow! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2017 -- 6040.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 19:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 19:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I struggle to see why this should be FP. Charles (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review. --XRay talk 16:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Поглед кон планината Ниџе.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 12:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose hmm, looks extremely overprocessed to me. Fixable? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know about the processing, but the sky has dust spots. Charles (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Whatever other issues it has, the WB is definitely off. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It is no a really sharp photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
File:2016 Minox C 10.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 19:26:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The spy camera is a very interesting object as such, but I think it has not been well enough cleaned. Moreover, the low contrast between the black holster and the black background does not work well for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Some measurement would be nice to see. --Mile (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The chain sort of ruins any simplicity the image might have had. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Very good, but I'm not a fan of the black background here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 07:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
- Info Venus de Milo (replica, Slovenian National Gallery). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support works surprisingly well... almost like a 1850s vintage photograph. The contrast, the angle, even the sepia tone --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Support--Yann (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)- Seeing the canvassing issue, I cancel my vote. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh lighting and hard shadows. Her right eye is in darkness and a dark patch on her neck and shoulder. You would not light a living lady like this and I don't see how a statue should be treated differently. -- Colin (talk) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Venus_de_Milo_(replica,_Slovenian_National_Gallery).jpg?markasread=4187485#File:Venus_de_Milo_.28replica.2C_Slovenian_National_Gallery.29.jpg11:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --M★Zaplotnik (edits) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. Poco2 17:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. A shame, because so much care seems to have gone into taking this photo otherwise. But there's no reason this statue should look like someone punched it in the face. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --romanm (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Sporti (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Something fishy going on here. romanm's only votes at FPC in last three years have been for two of Mile's nominations. Sporti's only votes on other's nominations ever at FPC have been for three of Mile's nominations. And User:Verde78 only contributions to Commons since June 2016 has been to vote for FPs on three separate days over a ~10 minute period each time, and each time containing an image by Mile to support among a handful of others. User:MZaplotnik is another Mile fan, with 2016 mostly votes for Mile. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- See this post by Mile on Slovenian WP. Translation "The picture is very good, the lighting is good and gives expression sculpture. Mal support to Commons would be good." (the word "Mal" didn't translate) where Mile pings lots of Slovenian WP users to come here and support. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Colin - My count: I've voted for 27 FPC since 2016, 7 votes of those were for photos which are somehow associated with Slovenia because this is the topic I'm mostly interested in. There's nothing fishy going on from my side, I just enjoy seeing Slovene-related photos among FPC and Mile is currently one of the most active contributors in this field. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 12:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your contributions indicate a high bias. There are many days where your only FP vote is a support for Mile (8th Jan 2017, 18 Dec 2016, 4 Dec, 27 Nov, 16 Nov, 13 April, 13 Sep 2015 x2). There are a few days where you vote for some other nominations, but nearly only when there's a Mile nomination to support also (e.g. 4th November, 3rd November, 5th May). There's clearly some Slovenian FP canvassing going on otherwise how would you know to turn up? And even if you aren't biased towards Mile, turning up to support Slovenian images isn't neutral either (and Mile's wristwatch isn't Slovenian AFAIK). -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- If I'm getting this right: me voting for Slovenian images is not OK but voting fot images other than Slovene-related isn't good either? I don't get it. Ratio 7 out of 27 in one year isn't high enough for canvassing accusation; you have to find other argument to prove your point. How did I turn up? Pages I edit are on my watch list, this is my preferred wiki-account option, so I get email notification. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let's put it another way. Of the 13 days you decided to vote at FPC in 2016/17, 8 were to make a single support vote for Mile; 2 were to support Mile's images and then a few others; 1 was to support a few images and then Mile's image; and only on 2 days did you not vote support for Mile. That's 11/13 days you turn up at FP to support Mile, and 8/13 exclusively so. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- If I'm getting this right: me voting for Slovenian images is not OK but voting fot images other than Slovene-related isn't good either? I don't get it. Ratio 7 out of 27 in one year isn't high enough for canvassing accusation; you have to find other argument to prove your point. How did I turn up? Pages I edit are on my watch list, this is my preferred wiki-account option, so I get email notification. M★Zaplotnik (edits) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your contributions indicate a high bias. There are many days where your only FP vote is a support for Mile (8th Jan 2017, 18 Dec 2016, 4 Dec, 27 Nov, 16 Nov, 13 April, 13 Sep 2015 x2). There are a few days where you vote for some other nominations, but nearly only when there's a Mile nomination to support also (e.g. 4th November, 3rd November, 5th May). There's clearly some Slovenian FP canvassing going on otherwise how would you know to turn up? And even if you aren't biased towards Mile, turning up to support Slovenian images isn't neutral either (and Mile's wristwatch isn't Slovenian AFAIK). -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, This voting has been compromised from canvassing on Slovenian WP - The Photographer 12:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The Photographer: I do not think this is a correct use of the {{FPX}} template. Users like Yann and Livioandronico2013, who have most likely not been pre-biased from canvassing, had voted support prior to this controversy coming up. And this template is only for the case where there have been only oppose votes. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- This template is used when the raison is clear to cancel the nomination. IMHO this is a good example (not docummented) when A nomination is clearly invalid. {{FPX}} apply in this case because "only oppose votes" mean in potential technical vote is planned during the voting and it's not the case because this nomination is canceled not because technical raisons. --The Photographer 13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is not clear, and more importantly, putting up such a template will only escalate the 'conflict' and not help resolve it. If you want to help someone taking the right decision after making a mistake, try to make it easier for then to correct the mistake, not harder. Think win-win instead of loose-loose.-- Slaunger (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I underestand your point of view, however, in this case we are not talking about some technical problem where the author could learn about how improve his/her image. We're talking about a well-know bad practice in wiki nominations and a situation where there is a conchupancia --The Photographer 13:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- This template is used when the raison is clear to cancel the nomination. IMHO this is a good example (not docummented) when A nomination is clearly invalid. {{FPX}} apply in this case because "only oppose votes" mean in potential technical vote is planned during the voting and it's not the case because this nomination is canceled not because technical raisons. --The Photographer 13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment (ec) Regarding the canvassing, I do not want to blame the Slovenian WP users coming here to vote. I am sure they mean their vote, although it would be best if they took the time to review not only Slovenian nominations but also more broadly. I do not particularly mind either that other users are notified about something, which might have their interest, even though I would not do so myself, as it is very likely to backfire - as we see here, but if so, the notification has to be kept in absolutely neutral language. And from what I read above, that has noway been the case. Instead the image has been described very positively, which could pre-bias voters to have an opinion before even looking at the nomination. And i agree, the most notable outcome at this stage would be for PetarM to voluntarily withdraw his nomination to avoid any doubt that the voting is rigged. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger, I think you are being too kind on the Slovenian WP users (if that's what they all are). The stats on these four accounts indicate a bias that I don't think is acceptable. I think they should be warned that turning up and supporting Mile/Slovenia is not at all what FPC is about. IMO, if this continues, all the accounts listed here, including Mile's, should be banned from FP for a period. There's really no need to play games at FP, especially when one has the talent to achieve this by honest and fair means. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict]: Slaunger, it sure looks like Colin has Mile dead to rights on canvassing, and I no more assume that people with seemingly nationalistic biases are casting genuine votes based on an effort at an honest appraisal than has been the case in Olympic judging of sports like ice skating that are most easily susceptible to manipulation. Without going onto tangents, it's a big problem in political systems when manipulated votes don't get overturned but only get litigated after the fact. If the vote count isn't stopped here and Mile doesn't voluntarily withdraw the nomination, what do you suggest we do? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: I had hoped for a significantly wiser response from Mile. Regrettably he completely denies there is any problem with this. For the nomination here the three support votes are below the noise level, and will most likely not affect the end result. It will most likely fail and it is likely to backfire even more. But, the way to handle it is just to discuss on the FPC talk page and come to consensus. In this case, it is also relevant to discuss sanctions - regrettably. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict]: Slaunger, it sure looks like Colin has Mile dead to rights on canvassing, and I no more assume that people with seemingly nationalistic biases are casting genuine votes based on an effort at an honest appraisal than has been the case in Olympic judging of sports like ice skating that are most easily susceptible to manipulation. Without going onto tangents, it's a big problem in political systems when manipulated votes don't get overturned but only get litigated after the fact. If the vote count isn't stopped here and Mile doesn't voluntarily withdraw the nomination, what do you suggest we do? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger, I think you are being too kind on the Slovenian WP users (if that's what they all are). The stats on these four accounts indicate a bias that I don't think is acceptable. I think they should be warned that turning up and supporting Mile/Slovenia is not at all what FPC is about. IMO, if this continues, all the accounts listed here, including Mile's, should be banned from FP for a period. There's really no need to play games at FP, especially when one has the talent to achieve this by honest and fair means. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I don't think the lightnng is good enough. With one eye in almost complete shadow I get reminded of an eyepatch. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose my Slovenian friends are welcome here as others. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just lost all respect for you right there Mile with your failure to acknowledge that canvassing in the pre-biased way you have done is of course not OK. Slovenian users are more than welcome if they come here with a 'fresh' mind to evaluate a broad range of nominations. Especially considering you contempt for doping, this seem like double standards. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The previous several FP nominations I looked at at Slovenian WP all had links and requests to come here to vote. The result is we are seeing at least four voters at Commons FPC who exclusively or nearly exclusively support vote for Mile and otherwise do not take an interest at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I believe it is my right to choose which FPC I take part in and which I don't. And such dramas about nothing or just personal resentments between two users are a good reason why not to. --Sporti (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really think your argument is worth engaging, but I'll just say this: You and the other Slovenes who vote here only when Mile has a nomination aren't the main issue here. It's his canvassing that's the issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I believe it is my right to choose which FPC I take part in and which I don't. And such dramas about nothing or just personal resentments between two users are a good reason why not to. --Sporti (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The previous several FP nominations I looked at at Slovenian WP all had links and requests to come here to vote. The result is we are seeing at least four voters at Commons FPC who exclusively or nearly exclusively support vote for Mile and otherwise do not take an interest at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously this is becoming private sector of few man. I dont think voting was fair here, especialy "per-per" part. Are people afraid of my shots ?! Should this become first into a book before renomination like Praga ? --Mile (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- If it were, you'd be one of the "few men", as you're a regular here, but you don't seem to have felt this photo was going to get enough votes without asking your fellow Slovenes to vote for it out of national solidarity. If this were already in a book, are you suggesting that wouldn't be fair to mention, but on the same level as canvassing a particular nationality for votes? In any event, you've doubtless been here when several new users got featured photos. I personally recall nominating photos of Spain and Ukraine by nationals of those countries who had had no FPs to that point and whose photos were promoted on pretty overwhelming votes. There is definitely a general board taste, but photos that the regulars here consider to be of high quality win, regardless of who took them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am a bit scared after observing the 5 poty Mile's finalists nomination, There you can observe the same canvassing pattern --The Photographer 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am serious considering block of The Photographer after his statemens about finalist. --Mile (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mile You could go too far and you could end up as what you want for me. Your arguments are so alien to what is being discussed here that makes me think that you try to divert attention from the subject. --The Photographer 22:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Photographer: Where you see the canvassing pattern, I see fellow Wikipedians giving fair votes to the images they think are the best. What about this PetarM's photo from Round 1 of POTY2015: Commons:Picture of the Year/2015/R1/v/Love padlocks on the Butchers' Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg. 3 out of 185 votes belong to Slovene Wikipedians! Is this also a pattern?
- And this one: Commons:Picture of the Year/2015/R1/v/Radovljica Linhartov trg drei Blechblasinstrumente 19032015 0925.jpg Here I count 5 Slovene voters! But wait a minute: author of this photo is Johan Jaritz, not PetarM. Is this another conspiracy? Or is it just a proof this vote count proves nothing... M★Zaplotnik (edits) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Let's not get distracted with POTY, where I think it would be hard to recruit 200 friends. That POTY is a great photo. This one is not. Let's all not make allegations without evidence. PetarM/Mile has made lots of bad-faith allegations, and continues to do so, but offers no evidence. Here the evidence of canvassing and of nearly exclusive Mile-support voting by several accounts is quite clear. -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mile You could go too far and you could end up as what you want for me. Your arguments are so alien to what is being discussed here that makes me think that you try to divert attention from the subject. --The Photographer 22:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the shadow on the right eye of Venus: it looks like she received an uppercut by Vulcain. I prefer the original statue. The canvassing is obvious and should be punished (temporary ban from FPC). And I think I am one of the specialists of museum photography here (more than 45 of my own FP, many QI, many VI).--Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I don't like what is going on here. --A.Savin 17:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose light, contrast, strong shadow: not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose On image quality. But I do hope the allegations of canvassing and biased voting are not true. That would be very sad for all of us involved in FPC. I'm sure this will be monitored in future. Charles (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Peeping.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 21:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
- Info In my opinion Tomas Castelazo is among the best peoples photographers we have had on Commons. Unfortunately, he has not been that active recently. As I was missing him, I looked through his uploads and found this compositional gem, which has not been nominated before. The photo also has humour, for a change at FPC. Created and uploaded by Tomascastelazo - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Technically it could be better, but it's such great capture of a moment. Well composed too. --cart-Talk 22:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Another National Geographic-quality photo. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good, useful shot. I would put PR template also.--Mile (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Good point, Mile -- Slaunger (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Refreshing Poco2 09:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Useful. ~ Moheen (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --ArildV (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Though I would have crop out the empty quarter at top. Excellent choice.--Jebulon (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 08:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
- Info Southeast transept of Saint Karl Borromaeus church at central graveyard, Vienna. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 09:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I love the style and decorations. High educational value, in my opinion, in addition to being a really fine photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 11:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question Is the deformation natural, or a lense effect ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info Thanks for the hint! I thought that the gallery is curved, but indeed it is not. This is a panoramic, and the deformation is because I used the wrong projection. I have corrected this, which however makes the crop tighter on top. @INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, Jkadavoor, Martin Falbisoner, and Daniel Case: please take a second look to see whether you still can support! --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It actually makes the crop more generous on top in the middle and tighter on top on the sides. The really unfortunate part of that is that it cuts off the corners of 2 mosaics. I don't think those corners are that important, so I don't think this ruins the photo and won't change my vote, but it's definitely a bit regrettable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak support And 7...I don't like this lateral view,but the pic i very good --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Small perspective problem, see note --The Photographer 10:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 11:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 09:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 09:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Very picturesque. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A nicely layered view ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel like the amount of foreground is a bit awkward; either there should be less of it (and it becomes more abstract), or we should see more of it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The haze is obscuring the wow, sadly. The immediate foreground is cool though! -- Thennicke (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Enough wow for an FP. The foreground has it--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per KoH. To me it isn't clear what is the main subject of the image and the elements in it do not result in a balanced composition, sorry. Poco2 11:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Pudelek (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Lovely image. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Пелистер 2015.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 13:35:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Self promotion, composition, ... --The Photographer 13:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @The Photographer: The image is not meant to promote someone. Does this one from the same scene work better for you?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- In this case the main subject is the scene, not the people that look simply posing, however, the composition is too simple in general with or without the people. It's only MHO --The Photographer 15:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with The Photographer that the composition in this photo is not interesting enough for a feature. The other one is more interesting to me and I would think about it but would have to hesitate somewhat on whether it's one of the greatest photos on the site. It does have a good composition for me, though, and I might or might not end up supporting that one if it's nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination per the comments above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Vineyard near Tokaj, Hungary.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 11:01:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Well-done technically, and as I often say I can see what you were thinking. That road trailing off into the distance is, I admit, hard to resist. But ... unfortunately the trees wind up doing more than just being a nice framing device, they distract us from the vineyard and compete with the road. There's also enough discordant elements within the vineyard itself to disrupt the symmetry the vines themselves might confer. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The road is really nice, but I have the same objections as Daniel Case, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, as per Daniel. Composition is not wow enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2017 -- 6009-15.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 16:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 16:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 16:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Lovely --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question Is this tilted? The trees in the background, and the horizon, make it appear so -- Thennicke (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- The spirit level of my camera said no. --XRay talk 04:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel like there are many places where you can point your camera at the sun behind the silhouette of trees, and I just don't find this one particularly remarkable. (I don't expect every backlit shot to be as amazing as File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg, but something like that.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately per King. I don't know if brighter processing might change my mind? The thumbnail looks rather drab and dull -- Thennicke (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per King of Hearts. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. I'm looking forward for other images.--XRay talk 05:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Aghveran winter landscape.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 07:54:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Armenia
- Info created by Beko - uploaded by Beko - nominated by ԱշոտՏՆՂ -- ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. --GeoO (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very poor image quality, also would need perspective correction but that wouldn't come close to rescuing the photo for FP or QI. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image quality is very poor --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2017 (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. |
- Oppose Too high contrast. Dull light. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 19:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info Cemetery of the Diri Baba Mausoleum, Qobustan, Azerbaijan. The 15th century muslim graveyard is located on a hill in front of the homonymous mausoleum. All by me, Poco2 19:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 19:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry. I like the picture overall, but in the detail, it is blurred too much. (For example the leftmost tomb.) — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)- I change it to Neutral. Per Ikan. — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I tend to agree with Draceane about unsharpness, but this is a very large file. I think I will defer to others on how to judge this photo fairly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Of the three images you have uploaded from this part of the monument you have picked the best. I am perfectly OK with the technical quality, but the light is boring and flat and the composition misses a clear idea for me, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Personally I like the lighting - it gives the photo a depressed mood, which is suitable for a cemetery. The composition is fine too, imo. My favourite part of the image is the grass at the bottom. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support You've succeeded in nicely capturing the mood of the place. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. The concept of sharpness is overrated anyway ;-)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I love the mood and the composition, but there's more unsharpness than I can forgive. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The area in focus is too small for my taste, at least I would have expect more of the gravestones to be a bit more in focus. Maybe a focus point too near of you, or you were a bit too close. The light and the sky too are a bit boring. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose There are those pics that we just miss, this one one example. The DOF is too shallow leaving most of the image out of focus - unless the intention was to focus on the grass, in which case I will admit I simply don't understand the picture. KennyOMG (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 18:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Tuulegeneraator.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 15:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
- Info created and uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There are many good things about the image. The visibility is great, the light is great as is the time of day for such a shot, the elevated drone position is potentially very good, and image quality is also fine. But there are two different aspects of the composition that makes it unbalanced IMO. The fact that the straight road is not cropped exactly at the lower left corner, and that one wing tip, protrudes a bit over the horizon. It just does not give me the wow-feeling, the scenary could potenatially give. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This needs perspective correction. The composition is also very unbalanced, sorry. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose For me it goes beyond perspective ... the angle just doesn't work, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Goed ontwikkelde ademwortels (pneumatoforen) van een moerascipres (Taxodium distichum) op de scheiding van land en water 03.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 16:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # pneumatoforen of the Taxodium distichum
- Info Well-developed (pneumatoforen) of a bald cypress Taxodium distichum in the separation of land and water. Height from 33 cm water. Width 27 cm.}} all by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great color and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Strange, but high botanical value. Very good technical quality.--Jebulon (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Strange indeed, like some alien seed pod, and beautiful. --cart-Talk 11:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support----Isasza (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 07:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the crop. I prefer this version . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Alchemist-hp -- Thennicke (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 15:24:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info All by A.Savin. --A.Savin 15:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 15:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support High quality. Charles (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great view of both, the city and the sky Poco2 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer 18:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition with the angles. A bit noisy in the distance, but that's not a problem IMO. 00:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Daniel Case (talk)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great city, great view. — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 20:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Conditional support on fixing CA in windows. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Now take care for CA on windows. You can remove them with slider. --Mile (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 18:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
- Info created by PtrQs - uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by PtrQs -- PtrQs (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- PtrQs (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - FP for a stained glass window is a high bar. This pretty easily clears it, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Tilt in CW direction --The Photographer 19:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 21:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space_exploration
- Info created by NASA (cropped and contrast adjusted by Ke4roh) - uploaded by ke4roh - nominated by Ke4roh -- Ke4roh (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A striking view of the Shuttle and SCA, from a most unusual perspective, with spectacular lighting and background -- Ke4roh (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support The symmetry serves this shot well. Quality is on the low side (sharpness, overexposure) but it's not a shot anyone can just walk out and take. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- For external pictures like NASA, our comments and analysis could be adapted to the "new level" --The Photographer 11:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support For the wow -- Thennicke (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Love the way the cool, clean lines of the plane and shuttle contrast with the chaotic, brown earth below. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per KoH and Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Original is also good, no need for rotation. --Mile (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wow it looks like a rendering. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - In this case, with a discontinued program, I think we can consider a 2008 picture historic and judge it as great on that basis. If this were a 2016 photo of an active shuttle program, I don't know whether I'd vote to feature it, but given the circumstances, on reflection, it's a pretty obvious one to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --99of9 (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I love the composition, lighting and location. I wonder what's going on with the 747's nose. - Benh (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 22:32:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
- Info created and uploaded by Jee - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Clear enough to see features of the compound eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I will support if Jee can lighten image. Charles (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jee, I'm pinging you in case you'd like to play with the image per Charles' remark. You might not want to go too far, though, assuming that the current levels reflect the light conditions you dealt with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Thanks Ikan. Sorry for the late response; I was away and just saw now when returned. Reprocessed to add a bit more exposure and clarity. (This is a juvenile male, showing all marks which will be hidden by pruinescence. There are a lot of other changes including the eye colors. I created a Odonata of Kerala gallery to explain all these things to the beginners upon request. The behavior also different. We can see the adults near the ponds, well exposed, waiting for their girls. But a juvenile will never visit the ponds as they are not matured enough to mate. They have a secret life in the shades of the shrubs away from the water bodies. It is difficult to locate them. So the lighting condition is well matching to their behavior. ) Jee 04:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your edit improved the photo. I hope it gets some more love here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Lido de Thau, Sète cf04.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 17:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
- Info All by me -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I like the colors as well as the form and its elements. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral This photo is all about the lines, but I don't think it has been taken far enough when playing with those. I think it would have been better if the lines had coincided with the bottom corners, if you had stepped about 30 cm to the left, that would have happened. Otherwise, the colors are great with the same hue of two complementary colors. --cart-Talk 20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose To take cart's critique even further, the image overall just feels too vertically compressed. Perhaps if the strip of land you had been on was narrower, or your viewpoint higher above it, or there had been higher terrain on the horizon, it might have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing special for me. Charles (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Charles, if it is "nothing special" then it isn't FP standard, which requires images to have wow and be among our finest. The voting system only works if people are brave enough to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you know I'm brave enough to oppose if I feel like it. Charles (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Charles, if it is "nothing special" then it isn't FP standard, which requires images to have wow and be among our finest. The voting system only works if people are brave enough to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Ok, I'm going to make another 16:9 crop recommendation (with the thirds line on the horizon). Doing that, I can fill my monitor screen with it and on my high-DPI display I can make out the kitesurfing. Much as I like lines to coincide with corners, the "lines of grass" here are rather fat so I'm not that troubled by alignment. As other note, the colours are nice and I like the contrast between the choppy and calm waters. Shame the kites aren't bigger/closer. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question Colin, pardon me and my dumb questions, but why is it so important to have photos here at FPC displayed in one standard format or another? What's the rationale behind it? --cart-Talk 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well partly, if the crop is close to 16:9, then it might as well be because then it looks great full-screen on modern displays that are nearly all 16:9. But mainly I think a lot of landscapes look better in a wider format than 3:2. A 2:1 crop would also work here. I guess 16:9 is a compromise format between a panoramic cinema aspect and the old 4:3 TV standard. You went "wow" at the cinema but not with your old "box" TV. If you are asking why crop at all on Commons, then I think we are presenting a work-of-art rather than just a negative for someone else to crop later. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Guess I'm just old-fashioned when I adjust my crops to what's in the picture rather than the other way around if the option is free. Working with only predesigned formats can be good in some cases, but I still see FPs more as paintings in a gallery rather than desktop wallpapers. Maybe I'll grow up some day. ;) cart-Talk 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cart, I think the argument for a custom crop that suits the image is strongest, definitely. But sometimes/oftentimes there isn't a precise cut that is best and choosing some standard off-the-shelf ratio is an easy way to try alternatives and/or to suggest alternatives. There is something special about an image being frame-filling on one's monitor as then the monitor provides a frame, rather than a black bar or some intrusive portion of Windows. I found, here, that looking at a 16:9 crop fullscreen made me enjoy the photo more than a slightly squarer crop in a window. But that's just me, and doesn't hold for all pictures. The consideration that one should not just accept the 3:2 crop made by the camera, and try wider, squarer or taller crops, is widely made in photography books/guides, and 16:9 sometimes recommended as being a more natural fit for landscape than 3:2. As with all guidelines, it doesn't always apply or make good sense. As Christian notes, this isn't 3:2 anyway, and his crop is somewhere in-between at 16:10. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Just for info, on the right of the image the water is a former salt evaporation pond, now it's a kind of local nature reserve. The "calm water" between the land and the small wall was a canal for vessels carrying salt. To my greatest despair, there is almost permanently a strong NNW wind in my region (70-110km), and if this is the paradise for all species of windsurfers, it's terribly hard to make the macro photography, just look at the grass, it is always bent and shaken by the wind. Regarding the crop, I just tried the 16x9 crop in my pc, but was not very convinced that it had so much, or in all case the grass with the current 16x10 crop don't bother me, then I prefer to keep my favorite format. This image with a bigger windsurfer is also not bad IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Per cart Poco2 10:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- week support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative
edit- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose in favor of the color version. If you had offered only the black & white version, I might have supported it, but I really prefer the colors, in this case, in part because they're pretty vivid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose B&W is not adding anything to this photo, quite the opposite, it only dulls it. --cart-Talk 18:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose My critique above goes for both versions. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer the original. lNeverCry 04:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose a (digitaly) BW image is for me the same as a downsampling from a high to low resolution of oversaturated images .... Only true BW (Agfa or Ilford or ... films are true BW with a analogue camera) images are valid for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Alchemist-hp: this is not the color version wich have been desaturated, or at least not "only desaturated", it is another edition, though apparently not very successful. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is only a pseudo BW image. Not less, not more, but this is a philosophical question ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- This remember me some of your previous discussions with Colin, and I tend to disagree with you. BW can be an editorial choice, we always add more saturation, vibrance, contrast or all kind of things that change a bit the reality, why not less saturation? why not no saturation?. The only important thing is not philosophical but the visual message/result. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, it is and remains only "my opinion". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- A "pseudo BW image"? "Only BW films are valid"? What a load of nonsense. I'm sorry, Alchemist-hp, you cannot say these things and claim validity for them by insisting the are your "opinion". Buy a book on B&W digital photography and learn that digital has many advantages over film for B&W. An exception can be made for large-format B&W film, which still has some advantages over most digital cameras in terms of resolution. Digital B&W is not just about desaturating a colour image. Your dogmatic rejection of digital B&W photography is harmful to this project IMO. -- Colin (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can say it and I did it. This is my opinion! You can not change my mind. Not for us, normal Wikipedia-photographers. Or ... the photographer can me say and justify me: why he did a digital BW photo! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC) P.S.: I don't believe that: "Your dogmatic rejection of digital B&W photography is harmful to this project IMO" too.
- I did an attempt in BW simply because I like digital BW images, I like also a lot the color but I really like digital BW photos, and I would want to be able to make good bw images, that's all. Though with my attempt, my image lose something and indeed the color version is better, but it's because of the subject, light and maybe because of my edition too. The light/mood necessary for a successful BW is maybe not the same that for a successful colored image. I mean all BW images will not be necessarily so good in color, and at the opposite, all good color images can not not be so good when in BW. BW digital photgraphy is a true photographic technique, that begins with a choice of light/subject. For my candidate the light/subject is maybe not adequate for to make a successful BW image. But it is not a question of principle. It is a bit as if an oenologist taste a wine, but they says the wine is not good simply because they don't like the bottle... Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with your wine analogy. How a B&W image is made is irrelevant: only the result matters. Too much stubborn ignorance, I'm afraid. I don't need to change your mind Alchemist-hp, though I'd prefer if you went out and educated yourself on this matter, but I'd rather you stopped opposing for this reason. The WORLD does not agree with you, and your oppose votes on this matter are disruptive. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- In result: aganin a nice sample for a BW image that isn't good enough compared with a color image. My opinion in 99.9 % of all our comons BW "digital made" images are not better then a color image. @Colin my opinion isn't ignorance, my opinion is my opinion! You can accept it or not, but this will be still my opinion. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is fine to say an individual image doesn't work (ether B&W or colour) but not to dogmatically reject digital b&w. To claim a picture does not work because of how it is made, is no longer an opinion, but a false conclusion born of ignorance and prejudice that have no place on this forum. It's like saying nearly all famous photographers are men, therefore women cannot take good photographs. That's not an opinion, it's just wrong. Saying "my opinion is my opinion" is just vacuous. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, another approach: this is a democratic vote and I'm not a fan of "digitaly" BW images. The End and exit. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't help you, I'm afraid. And yes, I would you would "end and exit" with this sort of nonsense. Prejudice is prejudice. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong agreement with Colin and with Christian's point about the wine, rather than the bottle. Side point, though: I don't have the impression that almost all famous photographers have been men. Women have been among the important photographers for over a century. But that's a tangent, and your point is made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't help you, I'm afraid. And yes, I would you would "end and exit" with this sort of nonsense. Prejudice is prejudice. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, another approach: this is a democratic vote and I'm not a fan of "digitaly" BW images. The End and exit. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is fine to say an individual image doesn't work (ether B&W or colour) but not to dogmatically reject digital b&w. To claim a picture does not work because of how it is made, is no longer an opinion, but a false conclusion born of ignorance and prejudice that have no place on this forum. It's like saying nearly all famous photographers are men, therefore women cannot take good photographs. That's not an opinion, it's just wrong. Saying "my opinion is my opinion" is just vacuous. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- In result: aganin a nice sample for a BW image that isn't good enough compared with a color image. My opinion in 99.9 % of all our comons BW "digital made" images are not better then a color image. @Colin my opinion isn't ignorance, my opinion is my opinion! You can accept it or not, but this will be still my opinion. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with your wine analogy. How a B&W image is made is irrelevant: only the result matters. Too much stubborn ignorance, I'm afraid. I don't need to change your mind Alchemist-hp, though I'd prefer if you went out and educated yourself on this matter, but I'd rather you stopped opposing for this reason. The WORLD does not agree with you, and your oppose votes on this matter are disruptive. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I did an attempt in BW simply because I like digital BW images, I like also a lot the color but I really like digital BW photos, and I would want to be able to make good bw images, that's all. Though with my attempt, my image lose something and indeed the color version is better, but it's because of the subject, light and maybe because of my edition too. The light/mood necessary for a successful BW is maybe not the same that for a successful colored image. I mean all BW images will not be necessarily so good in color, and at the opposite, all good color images can not not be so good when in BW. BW digital photgraphy is a true photographic technique, that begins with a choice of light/subject. For my candidate the light/subject is maybe not adequate for to make a successful BW image. But it is not a question of principle. It is a bit as if an oenologist taste a wine, but they says the wine is not good simply because they don't like the bottle... Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can say it and I did it. This is my opinion! You can not change my mind. Not for us, normal Wikipedia-photographers. Or ... the photographer can me say and justify me: why he did a digital BW photo! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC) P.S.: I don't believe that: "Your dogmatic rejection of digital B&W photography is harmful to this project IMO" too.
- This remember me some of your previous discussions with Colin, and I tend to disagree with you. BW can be an editorial choice, we always add more saturation, vibrance, contrast or all kind of things that change a bit the reality, why not less saturation? why not no saturation?. The only important thing is not philosophical but the visual message/result. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is only a pseudo BW image. Not less, not more, but this is a philosophical question ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viadukt.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 13:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
- Info From David's description: A local train from Arosa to Chur crosses the Langwieser Viaduct, Langwies, Switzerland. The train is hauled by an ABe 8/12 "Allegra" EMU.
- Info Created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Criticisms could be made of this photo, but for me, the wow, the composition and the contrast between the muted colors of the surroundings and the vivid red of the train override them all, to the extent that I don't even want to think about any possible shortcomings. For me, this is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan, who describes the situation in an awesome way. Bingo! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Everthing's been said --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support It's not the sharpest but what a red line crossing a grey, grey world over a tremendous arc. Very good! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer 13:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 17:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Window shopping in Mexico City.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 20:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This moves me, and that goes beyond any petty critiques of anything. Great photo, for what it is and what it does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. WClarke (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice idea and composition (contrast of poor and rich), however, the "homeless" is cut (tight composition) and look like forced in the scene, btw need vertical fix. --The Photographer 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It is really great to see you back, Tomas! Regarding the image, the idea is very good, but why have you cropped it so tight around the homeless man? Is there somethng distracting to the right of him? The Photographer also has a point about the verticals. A {{Personal rights}} template on the file page is probably also relevant. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Slaunger! Regarding the verticals... the picture was taken from a higher point thus the normal distortion, also, it was not taken head on but from the side... As far as the cropping, I do not remember what was to the right, for it was a quick shot, but the placement is consistent with my composition practice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak support After deliberation. The crop is rather unfortunate, and I don't like the unbalanced feeling that the angled path gives. But... wow. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment
SupportSeemingly because of the original encyclopedic philosophy on Wikipedia, there seems to sometimes be a lack of images on Commons that try to send a message or make an artistic statement, as opposed to just being technically-sound. This image effectively sends a specific message that goes beyond the literal subject, and as a result separates its self from other images commonly nominated for FP. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- But WClarke, you already voted above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: I completely missed that I had already voted on this- sorry honest mistake. WClarke (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course! I don't think anyone would even have the thought that it wasn't honest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 23:01:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
- Info Looking quite smug on the Island of Grand Cayman. Well you would if you lived there, wouldn't you? All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Yeah, I might well. Tropical weather instead of frigid temperatures. But where's his money hidden? ;-) Seriously, great job! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment Chromatic noise on beak. Missing location category. --A.Savin 06:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- NR Done and category added. Charles (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 19:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support @Charlesjsharp: Your edit reduced the chroma noise but it was still too visible to my eyes. I've uploaded a version with no chroma noise - hope you like it. If I've stripped EXIF data or whatever feel free to revert me. Nice picture too! -- Thennicke (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm sure it's better though I cannot see much difference! Charles (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm not sure if this is a bug, or just due to the image being an active FPC nom, but I think the reason they look so similar is that clicking on my version is (weirdly) downloading your version. Compare the beaks of the two latest images and I think you might see that the "10th of January" revision (your revision, incidentally) has noticably less splotchiness. I hope I'm making sense. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- This happens to me too. I have to clear cache to see newly uploaded image. I use CCleaner. 11:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 08:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 09:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Badaia - Ganalto 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 12:51:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Lovely colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It is technically nice with a fine and simple composition, but I do not see it has a lot of value. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Slaunger. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Slaunger. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
File:2016 Nysa Kłodzka w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 2.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 12:30:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a QI for me, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me, sorry. Technical quality is OK. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - It's not letting me leave an image note, but I would suggest making your right crop just to the left of the building under construction. Yes, unfortunately, that means cutting off more of the tree, but the construction somewhat spoils the mood of the old buildings. I would be very likely to support the photo if you make this crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Just way too busy for me, and white balance looks a touch on the warm side, as if it were set based on the roofs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Young leaves of Papaw.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 06:40:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
- Info created by Shriheeran - uploaded by Shriheeran - nominated by Shriheeran -- Shriheeran (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Shriheeran (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resolution - see FPC guidelines. Thanks for your contribution --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2017 (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. |
File:Map of the Portion of Abyssinia Tranversed by the British Expedition in 1868.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 15:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
- Info Rare and unique on Commons created by Unknown, all else by Janweh64 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Janweh64 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing exceptional in this map, neither the size or the quality. Yann (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I may disagree somewhat with Yann: I consider this map featurable, but only if the resolution (size) is increased substantially and it's digitally restored. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, you don't really disagree with me. ;oD I also think that it may be featured if it would be much bigger, and of better quality, i.e. restored. As we say in French: Avec des si, on mettrait Paris en bouteille. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nice saying. I think the English-language equivalent is w:If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, you don't really disagree with me. ;oD I also think that it may be featured if it would be much bigger, and of better quality, i.e. restored. As we say in French: Avec des si, on mettrait Paris en bouteille. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan and Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Janweh64 : Its isnt bad, but should pass restoring, and shot in higher resolution. --Mile (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size and quality are too low | 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. |
lNeverCry 01:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Omgeving van het heideveld 034.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 07:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands
- Info Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Nature of It Fryske Gea in the Netherlands. Around the heath. Created and uploaded by Agnes Monkelbaan, nominated by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the lighting very much. And, well, also the funny looking cow. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Might be for desert in Africa, but red channel is far away "from" Holland. --Mile (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support All what counts is the picture. And that one WOWs me! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm sorry, I've been looking for a featurable photo by you, and while this is definitely a technically high-quality photo and its composition is good, I'm not wowed by it. The bull is interesting but has a lot of grass partly blocking it and we don't see its eyes; the scenery is pleasant but not exceptional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I really like this. The cow seems to "grow" from the ground up along with the grass. This is not a zoological photo of this breed of cattle but a photo of a scene and I know from experience that such pics are usually sneered at here at FPC. Glad someone had the guts to nominate one, thanks Martin! Colors are excellent and the quality is good. This photo looks like a painting and it brings to mind this rather prominent work of art. --cart-Talk 12:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Hipster cow! --Yann (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the recommendation of my picture Martin.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Martin and cart; also for the same reason Mile opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support WOw ...lovely composition. The sky in this way is also better (...and 7) --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very good. However, it is so close to 16:9 that I suggest you crop to that format. -- Colin (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wow there is. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice European savannah :) Kruusamägi (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support. The background is a bit too pastel-like for my tastes (too much NR), but otherwise very good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. The focus seems more on the foreground grass than on the animal; but other elements compensate it. Jee 02:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I have to say though that I am unsure about the authenticity of these tones as Mile mentioned above. This comment applies also to other images by Agnes. I enjoy very much the scenery overall but many of them just look to warm to me. Poco2 10:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support as per others, the white balance is a bit too warm, but big wow! Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. --Gnosis (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 07:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 09:59:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info "I remember the days when I used to do my hair every morning in front of the mirror, just the way Ethel liked it." All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Charles (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support You applied a noise reduction in background dividing in layers the bird and the background for apply a gaussian blur in the background, however, in the low layer (a copy of the front layer) there is the bird that now is showed like a dropshadow in the current image. My suggestion is apply a simply noise reduction in the background but not dividing in layers. BTW it's a amazing image --The Photographer 10:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can't see the shadow you describe. Can you highlight it please. I didn't use layers (nor gaussian blur) in the NR process. Charles (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I added a note, it is in around all the bird, however, where it is more visible is over the beak --The Photographer 12:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- New version uploaded, but I think you'll find it was/is an optical illusion :) Charles (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- :P I don't think so, take a look to the "note more clear" that I added, there is more visible the dropshadow --The Photographer 13:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- No. This VERY faint shadow is a result of reducing highlights of the white feather in RAW. Charles (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I added a note, it is in around all the bird, however, where it is more visible is over the beak --The Photographer 12:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is this background real, i suppose i could see some more at this EXIF. I would lift bird more up (+bottom px) and try to solve back. --Mile (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, taken against brown wall. Charles (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I added another note more clear (Between white feathers and the background), please take a look and let me know if this dropshadow could be fixed --The Photographer 16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support good enough as it is, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support for a feature of this weird-looking head and beak. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)talk]]) 16:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 19:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I am not entirely convinced about the composition. For me it would have worked better if the beak more directly pointed towards the lower left corner of the image. As it is now, the crop seems a bit too tight from below and with a bit too much space on the left hand side. Otherwise very good. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can guarantee if I was to crop the left, many editors will say (with some justification) that it is cropped too tight. I like where the eye is - rule of thirds on both axes... Charles (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Charles: That is actually a very good point! -- Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 06:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I think I see what The Photographer is pointing out ... but it's really, really subtle. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I believe what The Photographer is calling "drop shadow" effect is really local contrast, likely caused by the "Clarity" slider in PS. Visible but I won't go as far as call it obnoxious. Could be fixed with developing the raw again with a neutral clarity slider, cutting/masking around the bird and using the non-clarity parts as background. KennyOMG (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've never actually used the clarity slider, but, as I said, I did 'reduce highlights' of the white feathers in RAW and that has produced a very faint halo - it is much more marked if you process a JPG this way. Charles (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh I missed that part, but it's pretty much the same thing (adjusts local contrast and creates halos). Fix is also the same, even simpler (develop without highlight prot and mask the protected feathers on that image). I haven't said it yet but quite the pic otherwise! KennyOMG (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm often not as drawn into nature photography personally, though this image is a clear exception. Great picture. WClarke (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you made two votes here by mistake, Jacek Halicki. I have striked the second one. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're right, this is a mistake. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you made two votes here by mistake, Jacek Halicki. I have striked the second one. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Ninomaru Palace, November 2016.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 07:50:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info View of Ninomaru palace at Nijō Castle, a flatland castle in Kyoto at dusk. While most Japanese castles still have their representative, characteristic, and widely visible keep, the actual residences are almost always lost. Nijo Castle is a rare exeception, here the keep is gone but the residence still exists. What I like about this picture is its calm, detached mood. Usually the fortification is very popular with tourists and locals alike. Shortly before closing, however, the now forlorn palace gets to enjoy the day's last minutes of sunlight in peace. This scenery reminded me at bit of classical woodblock motifs, e.g. this one. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support My immediate thought was that I found the obstructing foreground trees distracting. On second thought the partial hiding of the palace builds up expectations of what will be seen as you traverse the curved path to the place. Excellent light and colours. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Slaunger. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Well done. Both the composition as well as the post processing are excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 06:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 02:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info Prussian Creek Chain Bay, near Mount Kosciuszko, Australia.
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I have no clue what should make this image outstanding. Image quality is also not the best. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination On second thoughts, Uoaei1 is right, particularly about the image quality -- Thennicke (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 00:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sky is too saturated, haloes around the edges, and a thick white line at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sky is not well done --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM DSLR lens
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 23:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
-
Front view
-
with tripod ring
-
angled view
-
with tripod ring
-
with lens hood
-
backside
-
with tripod ring
-
AF switches
-
with tripod ring
-
front element
-
rear element
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
- Info Another set of studio photographs, this time of the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro DSLR lens. Lighting and flagging setup: Image:Two flash photographic studio for lenses.jpg. 10–25 shots for each setup were focus stacked in Helicon Focus, then masked, dusted and retouched as necessary in Photoshop. Final and only sharpening by highpass filter 1px.
all by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC) - Support -- Lucasbosch 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 23:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Money
- Info Banknote portrait pattern made with Intaglio printing. -- Mile (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Interesting, good composition with the two eyes, and something different. Good quality, too. --Lucasbosch 21:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I made 2 portrait patterns of money. This will be first. Makroed as possible. Since we dont have any similar. Will be good for money folder, almost empty on FPC. --Mile (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
SupportlNeverCry 23:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(read more ...) |
---|
|
- Support - Interesting, unusual, and excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I remove photo, since some doubt fell within de Minimis. I will replace image with different one, till this one get approval or disapproval from "Copyrights". If OK'ed i will put it back latter. --Mile (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·(二道門).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 03:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info The first gate of Beijing Dongyue Temple. The gate is located in Chaoyangmenwai Street, Beijing, China. And it is one of the MHCSPNL (Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level) created by Legolas1024 - uploaded by Legolas1024 - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's a good subject and you're using a good camera, but for these kinds of low buildings you're almost always best using a landscape orientation. The processing is not great either, but that just requires practice. Also, at 1/30th of a second, you'll struggle to get truly sharp images. One thing I do like about this image is that it's quite symmetrical, and it's great to see nominations from China - we don't get enough of them. If you'd like more feedback to improve your photography skills, have a look at commons:Photography critiques -- Thennicke (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Excellent composition, but I dislike the sky (and trees) enough to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thennicke. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The symmetric view through the gate is good, but the light is dull, the sky burns the leaves of the trees and the portarit aspect ratio is not the adequate choise. Actually, a square crop may have been better. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Emelie January 2017 01.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 20:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
- Info The ferry Emelie arriving in Henriksdalshamnen (Stockholm) a very cold January day. I think the beautiful winter weather, the reflections in the ice/water and the lines in the sky and the ice makes the image special (and something more then just another ferry images). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Good things: The light and colors are good, and I agree the ice helps. Less convincing for me: Very strong highlights/reflections of the sun from side of ferry. The main subject being the ferry seems to fill a disproportionately small area of the photo and the almost centered composition does not work so well for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your comment. I don't mind the highlights, its natural for a sunny winter day with low sun and reflections (and no important details are lost). It's a little unusual composition, but it works in my opinion and the eye is drawn to the centre of the images (with the ferry).--ArildV (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I think this picture is great and by no means just a picture of a ferry. I would have nominated this if you hadn't gotten around to it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Teal works surprisingly well here as a color for the boat. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I understand the highligths, normal at ships. Also dont like centralizing, but here just works. --Mile (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A tad too centered, but well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I really don't like the composition and execution, with the boat (in the middle of the picture) lost against the buildings. And the reflections on the boat are unfortunate. Charles (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Martin but wowing to my eyes. I enjoy the close wide-angle view, the background and the icy water. Poco2 17:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good shot; aside from the boat, the smokestack in the background looks nice. WClarke (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Charles. A narrower FOV would've been more suitable IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Ivan the Great Bell Tower in Moscow Kremlin 1.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 13:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created by Dmitry Ivanov - uploaded by Dmitry Ivanov - nominated by Dmitry Ivanov -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not the place to photograph this building. Charles (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question @Charlesjsharp: , could you point to examples of a better location for this shot? Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure,i'm curious too--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just Google great bell tower moscow. Charles (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @Charlesjsharp: Yes, a view from the Sobornaya (Cathedral) Square (I think you mean it) is more informative: for the whole building is seen. This view isn’t so informative, but (I suppose) it has some “visual advantages”: the picture of the white tall tower “growing from the forest” can create a certain mood. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just Google great bell tower moscow. Charles (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure,i'm curious too--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Qualified support per Dmitri. "Qualified" because I think a crop of a lot of that empty space on the right would help, but if the photographer has a reason for it, I defer. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the facade is too soft. I wouldn't have promoted this photo on QIC either. --A.Savin 15:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow (I don't think this light and composition are the best for it) + issues with sharpness. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not wowed either. The main subject is centered, the left towers are not really contributing to the composition since they are significantly visible but only partially (that's somehow irritating). Charles is probably right and lighting/sharpening are not outstanding either as Ivo mentioned. Poco2 17:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose--Verde78 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 12:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plantains
- Info created by Shriheeran - uploaded by Shriheeran - nominated by Shriheeran -- Shriheeran (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Shriheeran (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice tree, but the light is a little dull, the crops on left and right are closer than I'd like, and the focus on the tree should be sharper. As a new member of Commons, you might consider trying to nominate some of your photos at COM:Quality images candidates. I've seen a number of relatively new members improve their skills through nominations and discussion there, and several of them have started getting photos featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 17:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose the unfavorable crop + light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the technical quality (sharpness, crop, light, composition) falls short of FP expectations. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (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. |
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 11:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Verbenaceae
- Info Lantana camara. This is a wild one (not an ornamental cultivar), deep in the forest. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 11:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jee 11:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Impressive closeup. I would have loved a slightly wider view, so that the top four leaves didn't get cut off, but you can't have everything. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, Jee, but I do not think it is on par with our other two lantana camara FPs, when it comes to the composition and the light. You have a slight clockwise rotation of the leaves, which gives, together with the slight crop of the leaves an unbalanced composition in my opinion. Moreover, I think the light is too harsh (flash?), with reflections in the leaves and washed colors of the flowers. Isn't the Lantana camara actually an invasive species in India? With 'wild' do you mean, not a cultivar and thus less bright colors of the flowers? -- Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger: 1.This is original lantana camara as confirmed by the experts in India. Since it is a popular ornamental plant, we can see it in gardens; but they are hybrids with boosted colors. This FP is 'Patty Wankler' as mentioned in description. The other FP is indeed a hybrid.
This seems original; but can't confirm unless we know from where it was photographed.(It is also a hybrid.) The difficulty is our garden cultivars will escape to wild and mix with originals. Here the current nom is photographed from the core of Silent Valley National Park (1300 m a.s.l.) where no human settlement or activity. (Disclaimer: I'm not an expert; just sharing what I learned from experts. I do post my works in expert groups and read all related discussions before making a nom here. I know here we expect less subject specific reviews even compared to EN wiki FPC. I had read this and this too before making this nom.) 2. "You have a slight clockwise rotation of the leaves.." Not me; it's by the nature itself. We are not going to see the two leaves in the horizontal plane in real life. And I prefer this position more beautiful than with artificial straightening. Jee 03:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor the reason I asked about invasive species was from reading Lantana camara, where it says Lantana camara, often planted to embellish gardens, has spread from its native Central and South America to around 50 different countries, where it has become an invasive species. From this I get the impression that it is an invasive species in India? But thanks for clearing that up regarding the hybrids vs non-hybrids. Yes, the leaves are not naturally aligned with the leaves - you have a point there, but the crop, composition and light is not good enough for FP IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The concept of invasive species is bit outdated. We are victims of excessive use of herbicides and insecticides; no more consider human economy over environmental harmony. The modern concept is weeds and pests are good and there are a lot of passive benefits from them to the crops too. One will be an issue if it is overpowered to affect the biodiversity in that region. Lantana camara is unable to compete with trees; so less a threat compared to Mikania micrantha. (I'm happy to withdraw this nom; but not happy to see two photos of ornamental hybrids are highlighted as the best works of a Tropical plant.) Jee 03:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger: 1.This is original lantana camara as confirmed by the experts in India. Since it is a popular ornamental plant, we can see it in gardens; but they are hybrids with boosted colors. This FP is 'Patty Wankler' as mentioned in description. The other FP is indeed a hybrid.
- Oppose per Slaunger. --LB 19:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Slaunger; I might forgive the light but the crops of the leaves prevent that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Jee 12:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Biblioteca Central de la Universidad de Bucarest, Bucarest, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 97-99 HDR.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 19:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Frontal view of the Central University Library of Bucharest and Carol I statue, Bucharest, Romania. The Central University Library was founded in 1895, 31 years after the foundation of the University of Bucharest, as the Carol I Library of the University Foundation. The building, designed by French architect Paul Gottereau, was completed in 1893 and opened on 14 March 1895. The volume collection has grown steadily from 3,400 volumes in 1899 to over 2 million in 1970. Poco2 19:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 19:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
OpposeAll is well, until we hit the black tiled roof. If I zoom to fit my screen, there is a purple noisy halo around the roof, most dominantly at the left and right towers. If I zoom to a reasonable review resolution of 10 Mpixel, the technical quality of especially the left and right side roof structures are bad - very noisy and very little structure/texture. I am a little surprised this was promoted to QI by Jacek Halicki back in september. It seems like shadows have been boosted much more than justified. I think HDR merge of bracketed exposures would have been a better technical choice given the large dynamic differences in light in the scene. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger HDR merge of bracketed exposures has been the technical choice Poco2 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Poco a poco: OK, it was not evident for me from the EXIF, the categories, any other information on the file page nor the picture. Which exposure times did you use? I recommend using the {{Photo Information}} for HDRs, see this for example such that you can indicate the exposure times. It is useful information for photographers interested to learn. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger, I always provide this information in the title, will add it in the file description page --Poco2 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I had not noticed 'HDR' was part of the quite long file name, sorry. I do not find the exposure times/EV step/number of brackets info in the file name though. I usually do not pay much attention to the file name as its primary role is to be unique identifer and secondly not be directly misleading. I pay more attention to the file page. But thanks for your intend to add the metadata to the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger, I always provide this information in the title, will add it in the file description page --Poco2 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Poco a poco: OK, it was not evident for me from the EXIF, the categories, any other information on the file page nor the picture. Which exposure times did you use? I recommend using the {{Photo Information}} for HDRs, see this for example such that you can indicate the exposure times. It is useful information for photographers interested to learn. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Slaunger HDR merge of bracketed exposures has been the technical choice Poco2 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Excellent building picture and I will change my vote if the noise aura generalized and noise in the left side is fixed. Please, compare the building right side with the left side. I added a note. --The Photographer 23:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The lit areas of the building are blown out. Since it's an HDR I presume you've shot frames where they aren't lost right? I think those areas should not be so bright in the postprocessing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question - What are all those lines on the left side of the sky? Should they be there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: Those lines are in the original (brightest) frame, I guess that could have been airplanes Poco2 07:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- They're in the current version, too. So many planes in .3 seconds?? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was 20 seconds, not 3 and the traces of the planes remain for a while, Poco2 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- What does this mean in the Metadata, then? Exposure time 3/10 sec (0.3) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan, he problem comes from Lightroom, it takes the exposure time from the first frame after the HDR merge. As I documented in the file description page the exposure times were 0.3, 2,5 and 30 seconds. Btw, in the last version I've removed the (airplane) lines Poco2 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- If so, your last version isn't showing up. I still see plane lines after reducing my cache to nothing. I think my overall opinion is that I like the building very much but find the blown lamps too distracting. I'm really not sure why or what you could have done about that, but it is so far making it impossible for me to feel "wow" from this photo. I won't oppose but don't feel impelled to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I will upload a new version this evening I see indeed room for improvement but right now the Lr catalogue is crashing when I try to rework it, as said, will look into it later Poco2 07:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I could upload a new version, this evening will upload another one. Poco2 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral per The Photographer.Update to weak support after last edit, and now that I know the exposure was 20 seconds and not a third. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)- @Slaunger, Daniel Case, and The Photographer: Would you mind having one more look at it? I've completely reworked it Poco2 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Looks like the shadows have been lifted quite que bit (and Canons suck when it comes to this so it shows). Wonder what your HDR pipeline is exactly. Strange you get this much noise. Also I don't like the prominent stars/glares. But it's still a very nice night architectural. We have worst FP.- Benh (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral The edit helped, and thanks for the added metadata on the file page. As benh I am surprised you are not getting a better quality, assuming your HDR processing has been done right. Have you had a look at each exposure and verified the quality is allright prior to HDR combination? And I find the weird lightbrown jagged lines in the sky mystic. It does not seem plausible that they are trails from aircraft over a 20 s period to me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Okay, there's noise, but in the FPC rulebook, supporting is allowed if the "wow overrides technical defects". The lighting and symmetry, along with the fabulous architecture, and impressive sunstars on the lamps, wow me enough. I think this deserves the star - just my opinion -- Thennicke (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak support I don't really get the nitpicking here. Is the subject good? Yes. Are the lights good? Mostly yes. Are there minor technical issues anyone can nitpick on? Sure. But I could go back to any given FP, even those getting the "support trains" and point out problems that could be improved. Same goes for the "distracting red lights", gotta be kidding there... Why weak support then? I'm not a fan of the sunburst effect, personally think the aperture was way lower than should have been. Apart from that I'd like to see a more gentle roll off of the whites, much like in v2-3-4. The reds were a bit over the top burning here and there but not much and should be easily corrected with little effort. Most importantly no artificial darkening of the sky because simply burning it will leave a halo around the building. Pull the sky down to dark and if part of the roof goes with it, then be it. The statue is easy to mask out to keep the details there. IMHO from the peanut gallery. KennyOMG (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Thennicke and KennyOMG. I think the criticism is much too harsh. Might be that there's still room for an improvement but all in all it's an excellent picture and surely one of our finest. --Code (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I think that this picture is FP, improvable? of course, however, that is another subject at photographer discretion. --The Photographer 16:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Hamadruas sp 05600.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 06:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
- Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Christian Ferrer
- Support Great details, color and composition -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great pic. Excuse my language, but that is just a crazy-looking motherfucker right there! lNeverCry 07:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Yikes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I had this on my list of possible nominees, too. I think the spider is interesting-looking, not scary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose For me, this is not sharp enough (and we don't know the species). Charles (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I've to agree with Charles but still the subject does wow me Poco2 17:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only per Charles (although I should add the color is very nice) but because the leaves unfortunately get in the way of appreciating the spider. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Hope Vengolis will switch to RAW soon which will improve the results a lot. Jee 03:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Fünfseenblick.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 17:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Very detailed for sure, but no wow for me: just a long strip of green with few features. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm sufficiently wowed by all the little details --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak oppose Per KOH -- Thennicke (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info @King of Hearts: , @Thennicke: I added some more linked notes, to make clearer what interesting sights can be seen from here. Most of them also have articles in English. --Milseburg (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Much respect to you: This is a really well-done panorama, a fine photograph and very valuable. But what it doesn't do, relative to other panoramas, including some of yours, is wow me. That's basically covered by KoH above: There just isn't that much to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 20:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Brazil
- Info All by -- The Photographer 20:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Nice building. I would love to see this facade on a brighter day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support dramatic. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, 5 min after started to rain and rained for 3 hours. Beria and me will wait in the building, however, without being able to enter. --The Photographer 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice atmosphere, though probably can be brightened a little. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment there is a noisy area in the sky, in the right part Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Thanks --The Photographer 12:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support ok, the mood is special and dramatic enough Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 21:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info Bottom view of an iwan in the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. The mosque, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the oldest still standing buildings in Iran and it has been continuously changed its architecture since it was erected in 771 until the 20th century.
- Support - Yes, another photograph of the Jameh Mosque in Isfahan, though a different part of the mosque than we've featured before. I said "Woooooow!" out loud when I opened it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thank you, Ikan! Poco2 22:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A little noisy in some places, but not the places that matter. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel. Strange, there shouldn't be any noise at ISO 200. Something that happened in post? Not a big deal anyway... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Shadow-sun dont go together here, neither part of sky. This could be done when without sun, and would also cut sky out. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Excellent --The Photographer 13:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Distinct approval. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Mile. --Gnosis (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you interpret his objections, then? It sounded like he was trying to argue that a night photo that somehow excluded any sky but yet had the complete iwan would be better than this. None of that sounded possible, but then maybe you understand what he meant better than I did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can't underestand why Mile is not banned from FPC --The Photographer 11:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a separate question, though it might be related if his reasons for voting against photos by Poco make no sense. I don't know whether this time, they make no sense or whether it's just a language problem. Probably best to discuss this elsewhere, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 03:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info The National Gallery of Australia from the south west in November 2016
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Although I'd suggest a tighter crop at the bottom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Changed the 16:9 to a 2:1 crop -- Thennicke (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very good - can you replace image on Wikipedia article. Charles (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done -- Thennicke (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I was thinking this building just wasn't featurable from my point of view, but your edits to brighten and crop the photo have made a huge difference. It's funny how relatively small a change can make the difference between a decent photo and a really good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan, who hits the nail on the head, like so many times before. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I'm not wowed and I don't get the wide support. It's just a good photo of a notable building. It's of course QI (though some remaining CA's at the left still there), but it was taken in plain midday light, so that the grass looks fade-out and the scenery rather boring. I also don't find the architecture particularly special. To get a wow photo of this, maybe a good idea to do it on Blue hour like on this photo (which itself is technically poor, but could maybe serve as a source of inspiration). --A.Savin 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- @A.Savin: I'm still deciding what I think about this review, but in the meantime, thanks for providing it; it's making me think more about how important the subject or the lighting are for making "wow" in an image. I'd like to point out that a lot of your own architectural images are also taken in harsh midday light though -- Thennicke (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes; when on travel, there is very limited choice what to photograph at which time of day. But nominating a photo on FPC is quite another story. --A.Savin 10:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I guess that makes sense - fair point. I guess there's a taste element to it, but I happen to love harsh light (reminds me of summer), and for this image in particular, chose it deliberately. Also to be consistent with other similar images. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support May be a little bit too bright, but OK for me. --XRay talk 07:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Virmalised 18.03.15 (2).jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 15:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info created and uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Quite beautiful, and the dark silhouettes of trees look quite realistic in terms of what a person would be likely to see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I added a noise reduction version, however, I reverted myself, if you think that this version is better you can set it on top. Nice image --The Photographer 13:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support For this kind of photograph: OK. Noise in the sky and minor CAs at some stars. --XRay talk 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 16:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- strong oppose absolutely oversaturated!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question - How do you know these colors aren't real, as auroras don't all look the same everywhere they're viewed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Legion of Honor at night.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 17:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose We have a lot of building FPs but I don't think this is quite there in among our finest. It isn't really that sharp, and not exceptionally high resolution that I'm willing to forgive. The blue-hour sky could do we being a little lighter/earlier. The lake occupies too much of the frame, imo, and isn't really a mirror reflection worth keeping. The image is slightly asymmetrical, though that's not bad enough to be an oppose reason. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 20:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Sharpness could indeed be a bit better. I do like the colors though, I also don't mind the rather late blue hour lighting. The composition is absolutely fine with me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per unsharpness noted by Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Зебрњак, Старо Нагоричане 23.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 14:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
- Info created by Sashoilievski - uploaded by Sashoilievski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I respectfully agree with Colin on this. QI and also should be nominated for VI as a subject of historic and encyclopedic importance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 20:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose A featurable image of this might well be possible, but this is not it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Berlin, Denkmal für die im Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Sinti und Roma -- 2016 -- 5594.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 07:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
- Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - That's a pretty striking picture, and of obvious socio-historical and educational value, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose While it may represent an important memorial, I find the photograph itself lacking. Low overal contrast, distracting reflections of the trees, distracting floating leaves hanging on the side of the memorial. It looks like a snapshot to me. The context of how the whole puddle looks is also missing, IMHO this should have been included. --LB 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Looks like a shapshot". :-( Never seen snapshots like this. It was made with tripod and I'd choosen a long exposure to accentuate the trees. IMO the the cloudy day is good to show the memorial in autumn. --XRay talk 09:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- @XRay: Good to know that you took care when making the photograph, and I respect your decision to render the trees sharply, but still, I find the composition lacking and it doesn't represent the memorial well enough for my taste. I would have liked to see the whole puddle and its decoration around it. As it is, you kind of included the edge of the puddle, but only a bit, and not enough to give someone a good idea of how the whole memorial looks when standing in front of it. --LB 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- This must be from polar bear and the keeper ? I would put into description. --Mile (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I thought its about that polar bear and Zoo keeper in Germany. Both died i think. --Mile (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- @PetarM: Mile, I know you're not a native German speaker, but neither am I and yet I can clearly tell from the filename that this is "Memorial to the Sinti and Roma victims of the Nazis". As such I can only assume that you were trying to make a joke, and honestly it's in poor taste given the real purpose of the memorial. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- He means en:Knut (polar bear) resp. en:Thomas Dörflein, but still I'm not sure what it all has to do with this memorial. --A.Savin 20:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @PetarM: Mile, I know you're not a native German speaker, but neither am I and yet I can clearly tell from the filename that this is "Memorial to the Sinti and Roma victims of the Nazis". As such I can only assume that you were trying to make a joke, and honestly it's in poor taste given the real purpose of the memorial. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry Daniel Case, i havent saw word "victims". Joke...grow up. --Mile (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is description in English : Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten (Dani Karavan, 2012), Berlin, Germany. --Mile (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @PetarM: "Ermordeten" means "murdered". I rather think that expressing disapproval of trivializing a crime against humanity like that is the grown-up thing to do ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It gets low readings on my wow-o-meter, sorry. I agree with the assessement of LB, acknowledging that it is not a snapshot. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose My complaints about Mile's sense of humor aside, the reflection ruins the simplicity of the memorial otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question - I'm looking at photos in Category:Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten, and what I notice is that this part of the memorial is in water, so every photo of it includes a reflection. How do those of you who think this photo doesn't properly reflect the "simplicity" of the memorial propose for people to photograph it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Looking at the first days of nomination there is no chance to get FP. Thank you for your reviews. --XRay talk 05:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 18:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info Panoramic view of Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. Poco2 18:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 18:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Maybe more sky than necessary, but there are lots of interesting things to look at in full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral The stitching errors noted need to be fixed.Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)- Daniel: Done and thanks to Ivar for the notes Poco2 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment but why choose such a miserable day? Charles (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good question Charles, actually I ordered good weather for the phototour, but they didn't listen to me :) Poco2 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- perhaps you can go back and take the same photos when the Caspian Waterfront Development is complete... Charles (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- And who guarantees good weather? :) Poco2 10:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Charles. The light is flat and unattractive. lNeverCry 03:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this is a very valid point. I still think it's featurable, because it's such a huge, sharp panorama with interesting things to see, and not every photo needs to be of a sunny day or some amazing cloud formations. But it is definitely a valid point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Ivar, the last stitching issues you noted are now addressed, thank you Poco2 16:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is a vertical straight near the right border. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- True, Christian, fixed now Poco2 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Fine. I appreciate this view. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Je-str: I just fixed the stitching error you noted Poco2 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Too much sky and not enough ground -- Thennicke (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I think it's possible people are opposing this photo or declining to vote for it because it isn't one of Poco's best panoramas. And that might be a legitimate reason to oppose it, actually. In other words, maybe we're spoiled, or maybe you (that is, Poco) helped set a new standard for what a featured stitched landscape/cityscape panorama is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure about that, Ikan, I don't believe that I'm setting any standards. When I observed this panorama I enjoyed it a lot but the result was just not what I expected, maybe the weather, the construction sites, the architecture, not sure. Poco2 19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Helfaut Generatrice 28 10 2011 2.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 16:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created & uploaded by Vassil - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I just read a bit of the history of this bunker, and it's quite interesting. However, this photo is too small for FP (and QI) and could be clearer, too. The absolute minimum size for FPC noms is 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, It's 3.6 megapixels. Tomer T (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for being careless. I still think it's pretty small for FP, though, and it would have to be a lot clearer to have a chance to wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, It's 3.6 megapixels. Tomer T (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Apart from the size, I'm not really wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not think the technical quality is quite on par given the modest imge size. Especially the kA and V-meters in the foreground. Interesting subject though. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 03:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 09:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support refreshingly different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice, something new here. Maybe a low level view could be more interesting with the sky on top --The Photographer 12:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info It was at a popular beach. In the background there was no sky, but hundreds of bathing people. --Llez (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- You might try diorama here. --Mile (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral Very nice image. But IMO it is a non permanent art work and this is not FoP in Spain. --XRay talk 19:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support because it's very nice. --XRay talk 07:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support @XRay: In general, works that are designed to be naturally destroyed by the elements are considered permanent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- But what if that guy from the Charles Atlas ads comes across it on the beach and kicks it into dust? Would that make it temporary? Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I do not fancy the angle too much, but won't oppose either as it is refreshing. As The Photographer suggest a photo taken from a lower level would have been more interesting. I realize it was a busy beach, but I think an interesting position would have been to get the camera to the ground level, put on a zoom or a macro lens and make a detail shot of some of the sand houses showing just the sand castle elements with no traces of the normal beach and background. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Composition is pretty good in my opinion, but I'm supporting this mainly for uniqueness, though of course the picture quality is high, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Clear depiction of a very interesting subject -- Thennicke (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this AOV here as it cover a lot of details which we will miss in a lower position of the camera. This looks like an areal view of a castle. The light is harsh; but I can understand as it is from a beach. Jee 04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 19:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:MNBA aos 80 anos 01.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
- Info created by Tomaz Silva/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- ~★ nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop, perspective, noisy. Looks like a snapshot, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Slaunger.--Cayambe (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Slaunger; perspective problems are obvious even at thumb size. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
File:MNBA aos 80 anos 02.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
- Info created by Tomaz Silva/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- ~★ nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me, I miss a clear idea with the composition. Needs perspective correction, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 02:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Slaunger. --Cayambe (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lens, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 00:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
-
Front view, horizontal
-
IS+AF switches
-
Back side
-
Looking down by 20°
-
With lens hood
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
- Info My studio photographs of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lens. All were taken with a Canon 6D with Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM lens (lighting and flagging setup: Image:Two flash photographic studio for lenses.jpg). Settings: f/8, 1/180 s, ISO 100. 10–25 shots for each setup were focus stacked in Helicon Focus, then masked, dusted and retouched as necessary in Photoshop. Final and only sharpening by highpass filter 1px.
Created by Lucasbosch – uploaded by Lucasbosch – nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB 00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC) - Support -- LB 00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great macro work. Very consistent processing and lighting. I could imagine seeing these images on the-digital-picture.com or somewhere like that -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This is not the kind of subject that most interests me, but I'm super-impressed with this work! I love all the detail and the light. Really great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support "Great macro work" - LOL! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great. This is really excellent. Congrats. --Code (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm very impressed! Great work. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support As a straight educational product catalogue shot (vs advertising where the image has to have desirable appeal) this is as good as it gets, with even lighting and a totally clean subject. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I also thought I was on the-digital-picture.com for a short moment. Very nice. - Benh (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great work. --Gyrostat (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support So good I can practically smell the plastic. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very nice and very useful on this project. --Reguyla (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:2016 Minox C 8.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 17:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Now this works. Daniel Case (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support what size, measurements would be good to see. --Mile (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 09:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice, but the miniature camera is not well enough cleaned in my opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 17:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
- Info Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches set from 6 to 19 mm. This is a shift panorama using the Canon TS-E 90 mm because my acrylic plate wasn't large enough for the whole set, additionally it's a focus stack of 5 to 6 images. Post processing to remove dust and make the background pure black.
Created by Lucasbosch -- uploaded by Lucasbosch -- nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC) - Support -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 04:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- LB Did you check "landscape" version ? --Mile (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @PetarM: What makes you ask? Could be that I missed to set it appropriately, but there seems to be no place to check that as far as I can see. What would happen if it is set wrong? --Lucasbosch 12:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lucasbosch Nothing is wrong with the set. Try to rotate it for 90 degress. It works better. --Mile (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @PetarM: For my taste it looks fine the way it is and it is more space saving when being placed on the right side of articles. Also, the majority of the text on the wrenches is oriented this way, so it's easier to read. --Lucasbosch 14:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Look forward to many more contributions from you. - Benh (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Again, not my favorite subject, but this level of excellence deserves recognition, and that means a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 07:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles
- Info Komatsu bulldozer pushing coal in Power plant Ljubljana (winter 2017). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Just like Kabellerger's shot of the train going across the bridge, the color pops against the natural winter monochrome behind it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This image is good, but I feel uneasy looking at it because you seem to have rotated it to make the bottoms of the tracks horizontal - really, what needs to be horizontal is the bucket, because that is what is in the center of the image - and at the moment the bucket is tilted heavily to the left. Which would be fine if the dozer was going uphill, but the composition does not contain clues to that, and therefore this is uneasy on my eyes. I also think this is slightly overprocessed - too much contrast. Good, simple composition though, and Daniel's comment about the colours is spot on. I'll definitely support if you fix the problems I've noted -- Thennicke (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thennicke Good, first, i couldnt say is bulldozer in normal position by nothing here seeing vehicle alone, but look i have some luck. See note, there is part of high building on right side, you can see vertical line is positioned good. This was one of quick images, nothing much to change, contrast same, but offset changed to my taste to -0.0124. Offset and crop. So, no rotating, this path goes some 10-12 % uphill. --Mile (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, now that you point it out I see it. However, a person looking at the thumbnail will not notice it, so that isn't good. And for that reason, I stand by my statements. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. No problem with the angles for me, and the distant buildings on the right confirm that no rotating has taken place. —Bruce1eetalk 17:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the contrast between the yellow dozer, the black coal and the white snow. Nice and creative idea. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - There is a lot of energy in the picture. Nice composition and I am not worried about the angles. --Pugilist (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Panorama of Auxerre.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 20:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Moderate support Not technically perfect, but nicely composed all the same. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Lovely scene. It's only a moderately sharp 17 MP image when we frequently see more than that here, but great wow factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest crop per note. --Mile (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your note hasn't shown up yet. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'd also suggest a tighter crop (see my note - I couldn't find Miles' yet) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hope now is there. --Mile (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - My problem with the photo as is is that I don't really like the right crop, which cuts through a boat (and also what seems to me to be a concession stand, but I care less about that). However, I'm not sure if either of the two suggested crops solve the problem for me. My main hesitation in terms of Martin's crop is that although it's neat, cropping out the tall tree might have an adverse effect on the form, making it unbalanced between right and left, plus I'd just miss seeing that tree and its reflection. Something similar to Mile's crop might be helpful, but I wouldn't suggest bisecting the reflection of the trees near the near right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Whilst this is well-processed and it's a lovely image, the right crop is too bad and I don't think this can be rescued in post. This kind of thing needs to be thought about in the field, unfortunately. Turning the camera a little to the right would have saved this. The reflections and processing are definitely impressive though. I hope my review is helpful. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition does not work for me, too much foreground water, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support now. Jee 03:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Gut feeling: Even with this crop, this is a good to very good picture but not one of the most outstanding on this site. No offense intended. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral An attractive picture (I love the autumn colours of the trees on the right), but it's a bit unbalanced with the left side "higher" than the right. I also find the NR (?) smears too many details away. - Benh (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·(二道門).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 03:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info The first gate of Beijing Dongyue Temple. The gate is located in Chaoyangmenwai Street, Beijing, China. And it is one of the MHCSPNL (Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level) created by Legolas1024 - uploaded by Legolas1024 - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's a good subject and you're using a good camera, but for these kinds of low buildings you're almost always best using a landscape orientation. The processing is not great either, but that just requires practice. Also, at 1/30th of a second, you'll struggle to get truly sharp images. One thing I do like about this image is that it's quite symmetrical, and it's great to see nominations from China - we don't get enough of them. If you'd like more feedback to improve your photography skills, have a look at commons:Photography critiques -- Thennicke (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Excellent composition, but I dislike the sky (and trees) enough to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thennicke. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The symmetric view through the gate is good, but the light is dull, the sky burns the leaves of the trees and the portarit aspect ratio is not the adequate choise. Actually, a square crop may have been better. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Orange hibiscus.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 00:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - You might have moved the blue chairs (I think they are) away, but they arguably add interest to the background, and pro or con on the chairs, this is a great closeup of the flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The blue object/s aren't natural. I would've moved them. They distract from the flower. lNeverCry 03:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, background is noisy and it seems a little underexposed to me. Nice color though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting background elements. Center of flower is not as crisply resolved as I would anticipate in a a flower FP, sorry. Colours are good though, and it is refreshing to see other topics than church interiors nominated by you. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks Slaunger, but unfortunately it is a rumor. I have [2] FP of paintings, statues, panoramas etc ... it is logical that something is more common as many people have more of FP of flowers, insects, or ... churches. Greetings.--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Livioandronico2013: Thanks for clarifying, that you are not a church interior only FP creator. It was the only type of FPs I recalled having seeen previously, but I did not double-check.-- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 03:44:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support- I like this view, looking from shadow into light; the lighting on the marsh grasses; the shapes in the ice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)- Oppose Nice but not exceptional. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin, sorry. I think the image could have worked for me, if there were a solitary tree or isolated trees but these cut off branches on the right break the harmony for me. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I have to admit, I find the cut-off tree at the right margin problematic. Forgive me, I am changing to Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention that others change their mind :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 01:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination You are absolutely right. Those scares were also mine, a reason why I hesitated with the nomination so long. Anyway, I thank you all for your honest opinion. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 09:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Lacking a geocode but otherwise... -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Thennicke. Great light, fine composition, impressive resolution and fantastic scenery! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per others. --Lucasbosch 12:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A little bit of posterisation at the top left but overall fine. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Looks like something from Lord of the Rings! lNeverCry 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral It's a gorgeous scenery and normally a no brainer support... but it looks quite tilted to the right - Benh (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I noticed that. Pinging @Chensiyuan: for comment. Otherwise we might just have to rotate/perspective correct and reupload ourselves. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Well, Thennicke, you said we should have more China FPs, and then you found this ... wow! Can't find a more Chinese landscape than this. I hope I get to go back there again, and when I do I want to see this place. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Yes it's a great image isn't it! I'll be nominating more panoramas from this uploader; some are even better than this one -- Thennicke (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
File:De zon probeert door de mist te breken. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 05.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 06:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info The sun tries to break through the fog. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. created all by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I like the combination of the traditional "landscape-in-fog-mood" and the double sun; it gives an almost surreal expression. --Pugilist (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Best here is you dont see the horizon. Love winter colors. --Mile (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I had this in my list of possible nominees, too. Great photo, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
- Support Jee 12:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support "I look around / Leaves are brown, now / And the sky is a hazy shade of winter". I have taking a few pictures trying to capture that concept; none of them have come anywhere near this one. Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Worker in São Paulo city.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 12:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
- Support All by -- The Photographer 12:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great work, Wilfredo! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obrigado caro Arion, por qué vc paro de nominar minhas fotos? --The Photographer 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- @The Photographer: Olá meu parceiro, na verdade eu pausei minhas atividades no Commons, por motivos pessoais. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Obrigado caro Arion, por qué vc paro de nominar minhas fotos? --The Photographer 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong support The monochrome brings out the grittiness of his work, and the chaos of his space is nicely contrasted with the geometric orderliness of the surrounding facade. Another great bit of street photography. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great scenary. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 23:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The B&W adds a nice sentimental touch, but when I ask myself "Is this the best we have to offer?" I think it falls short. His pose and facial expressions are all rather ordinary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose - If you had cropped this closer, I might want to feature it. But as it is, the door to the worker's right (viewer's left) distracts me too much, when what I'd really like to focus on is the scene in his workshop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow + per King. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel Case. --LB 19:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Wire-tailed swallow, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 12:03:20 (UTC)
-
Parent approaching with food
-
Transferring the food
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Hirundinidae_.28Swallows.29
- Info Wire-tailed swallow, Hirundo smithii, is a small passerine bird in the swallow family. It has two subspecies: H. s. smithii, which occurs throughout Africa, and H. s. filifera, which is found in southern and southeastern Asia. Created by Manojiritty - uploaded by Manojiritty - nominated by Jee -- Jee 12:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jee 12:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Request Removing that brown blur on the right side of the left image would make these two instant FP for me. --Lucasbosch 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I had talked about it to him. It is from some tree parts. It is appreciated if someone having good processing skills help to remove it. Jee 12:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jkadavoor: I removed it. Support from me. --Lucasbosch 14:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Manojiritty and Jee I removed the noise, if you think that it's not ok, simply revert me. Thanks --The Photographer 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Both images made my day this morning. --smial 13:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Neutral Amazing image, however, background noise, chromatic aberration and bird aura, different light background for the images --The Photographer 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Support --The Photographer 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)- Support For a photo of a bird in flight / docking, at 420mm, and at around 10MP, this has good sharpness and is an excellent catch. I can forgive the slightly noisy background from ISO 1600 which really shouldn't concern us at 10MP wildlife photo, and would rather that than crude smoothing that risks losing detail round the birds. Shame the shutter speed changed between photos, but strangely the one with the longer exposure is darker. Were they processed the same? If the raw file is available then I can have a go, but am reluctant to process the JPG any further. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Colin. He is away; will share the raw files after two days. Jee 04:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Plenty of wow-factor for me, and if Colin is good with the technical aspects, I can't see any reason not to support this impressive pair of images (and birds). lNeverCry 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The lighting is suboptimal, but the huge wow factor is more than enough to compensate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support ! -- KTC (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Colin and King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wow! For technical information: The different look of the two pictures is based on different WBs, so if you adapt them (the right one is colder), they look rather similar. And there is some CA. --PtrQs (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The white balance seems to be off. Otherwise great images! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I thought about this for a long time, and ultimately, I agree with the others that capturing a great moment like this is worth a little motion blur, which I figure is unavoidable in this situation, anyway. But harmonizing the white balance of photos taken just a moment apart would be the right thing to do, in my opinion, if you can do it without damaging anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- We'll get the raw files and hope we can solve that issue soon. Jee 11:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Colin, I just mailed you the raw files. Please check. Jee 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Just at the right moment, excellent --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Gnosis (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Jee has sent me the raw files. I had a go at reprocessing them and sent him some draft copies, which he liked. I have fixed the issue where the exposure level is inconsistent, and also cropped them both such that the second picture is positioned relative to the first. I have lightend the exposure a little for both, as it seemed a bit under-exposed (shout now if you feel the exposure is currently correct). I haven't uploaded anything as I still have to Photoshop out the brown blur on the RHS of each, and hope to find time for that tonight. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please @Colin: , could you upload the raw files to commons archive Thanks --The Photographer 12:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:The Photographer you will have to ask the creator, Manojiritty, to do that. And most people don't upload their raw photos as it lets them retain some ownership. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I underestand, sorry --The Photographer 12:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've uploaded a new version of both files, with permission, with exposure and framing aligned between the images. The images are a little different as no two people will process a file the same way. You may have to refresh your browser's cached copy of the image with Ctrl-F5 or similar. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor, Lucasbosch, The Photographer, Smial, and INeverCry: @Livioandronico2013, King of Hearts, Martin Falbisoner, KTC, and Christian Ferrer: @Jacek Halicki, Uoaei1, -donald-, Daniel Case, and PtrQs: @Johann Jaritz, Frank Schulenburg, Ikan Kekek, Tomascastelazo, and Michielverbeek: @Gnosis, Jacopo Werther, and Schnobby: -- Colin (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Great job! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Great rework. Thx Colin. Now I have a problem when it comes to POTY 2017. Which should I choose? --smial 23:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Thanks on behalf of Manoj too. Jee 03:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Now that Colin has reprocessed the images -- Thennicke (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
File:08A112 in Chasha Depot.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 04:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
- Info A5 Metro train was stopping in Chasha Deport, Canton, China. created by Towermega - uploaded by Towermega - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas1024 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Legolas1024 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
SupportGreat composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)- Again I made the mistake of judging on my 1366x768 laptop while forgetting I was on my laptop, and assumed it was large enough because it filled my whole screen. Switching to Neutral due to being minimum resolution without anything to compensate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nicely composed, but unfortunately the glare on the rear carriages spoils it for me. —Bruce1eetalk 06:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose nice composition, but too small Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Perfectly good QI, I think (I guess it would remain to be seen whether it would pass if nominated at QIC), but compared to the great photos of trains in nature by Kabelleger, Poco and others, this palls. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose On the one hand, I would like to strongly encourage more photos of trains or rail vehicles from above or below the view plane rather than on it ... as this shows, it can add more interest. And I love all the cool colors.
However ... as King notes the small size works against it, and I also think that large cloud flattens the light and distracts from the train a little. There are also perspective problems apparent at the right of the image.
This, unfortunately, is why I wind up opposing so many DP/S images no matter how wonderful they otherwise could be. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question - What does DP/S stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Digital point and shoot". In other words the type of low-end digital camera widespread before the advent of the smartphone. A lot of my early pictures here on Commons and Wikipedia were taken with one. Some of them actually made QI, but I'd never dream of nominating them for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've got one which might one-day make FP if I edit it a bit. It's hard to get to FPC-worthy images with DP/S cameras, but not impossible (often involves luck) -- Thennicke (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Digital point and shoot". In other words the type of low-end digital camera widespread before the advent of the smartphone. A lot of my early pictures here on Commons and Wikipedia were taken with one. Some of them actually made QI, but I'd never dream of nominating them for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 00:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by LeoDE - uploaded by LeoDE - nominated by LeoDE -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The singer is in a strong pose, but the background is unattractive. This would've been better if he was at left in the frame and some of the audience took up the right of the frame. lNeverCry 01:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info Just for Information: Audience wasn't possible due to the huge pit. But thanks alot for your feedbak --LeoDE (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very powerful concert foto. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Frank! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose composition, background lighting, sharpness. Charles (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I think this is a good and expressive concert photo, and I like the background stage illumination. It is as if it pushes the singer towards the audience. The crop of the foot could have been better but oh well. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charles + random compo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This is for sure not one of the very best --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like this photo, but ultimately, Uoaei1's argument really cuts to the heart of the matter and carries the day for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 22:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info De Bazel is a monumental building in Amsterdam named after the architect Karel de Bazel. It was completed in 1926 and stands as an example of Brick Expressionism. This nominated picture is a detail of the facade, including four windows, and shows how bricks are used as ornamentation in complicated patterns. Today, the building houses Amsterdam City Archives. Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Splendid! Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 07:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great picture. Love detailed images like this of architecture, and the blue contrasts well with the brick and stone. WClarke (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support and the seventh :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Natural nude tree.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 20:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please tell us why you think this photo should be featured. I'd like to have your thoughts on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I could tell you it is a study on texture and volume, or that the forms on these trees are interesting, or that I and some others have a dirty mind... ;) Please see #REDIRECT[[3]] and #REDIRECT[[4]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the joke. I like File:Enterolobium cyclocarpum 01.jpg better, nevertheless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Reject. Charles (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Well, it was clear for me after a split second, why you nominated this, Tomas. Hahaha. Well spotted. A brilliantly illuminated trunk, nice texture and shape. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. File:Enterolobium cyclocarpum 01.jpg has much greater visual impact. I would support that. lNeverCry 02:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to explore some suitable categories. Jee 04:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, nothing featurable here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - So ultimately, I think this is a moderately funny joke, since it was explained to me, but the composition doesn't really add up for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Miha (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 08:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good shot of interesting stuff. I would decrease sky noise a bit, and put into description is it active or a museum. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I slept on this photo, and my verdict is that it's beautiful. Decreasing the sky noise would be fine, but it's a very fine grain that doesn't bother me at all. I really like the texture of the wooden chapel and fences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose A good image but the shadowed fence make it not outstanding. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - For what it's worth, I like the alternation of light and shadow and think it contributes to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I actually agree. The main subject is literally in the "spotlight" this way. I'm not sure whether it would have resulted in a better outcome had I waited for afternoon sunlight to also shine on the palisades. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Delicate light and colours on the main subject and very balanced composition. I do not mind the fence in shadow. Sky could be selectively de-noised, but it is really only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The shade is not so prominent in a large view. Jee 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I would say edu. value as first here.--Mile (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nicely done -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support well composed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 19:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Konzethaus Berlin, a concert hall located on the Gendarmenmarkt square, center of Berlin, Germany. The Neoclassical building is one of the major works of the architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel whereas the sculptures in the exterior are work of Christian Friedrich Tieck and Balthasar Jacob Rathgeber. Inaugurated in 1821 as the Royal Playhouse it became from 1919 to 1945 the Prussian State Theatre. Due to severe damages by the Allied bombing and the Battle of Berlin it was rebuilt from 1977 until it was reopened in 1984. The building houses the Konzerthausorchester Berlin. All by me, Poco2 19:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 19:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - You could try for slightly more noise reduction for the sides of the building and neighboring buildings, but I find this a very harmonious photograph, regardless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 02:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice light & color. lNeverCry 04:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support ¡Es perfecta! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Candle (Slava celebration).jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 08:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
- Info Candle (Slava celebration). My work. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose yet another candle picture --Miha (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good light, good composition. --XRay talk 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is good but it lacks something else. Poco2 09:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support While we do have lots of candle photos on Commons, this one is pretty well done, and I don't see anything similar already FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose a candle light. No wow and per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Matka 1.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created by Beko Photo - uploaded by Beko Photo - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This is a nice mood but technically the image seems too noisy and bit unsharp to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
* Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Basotxerri: and @Martin Falbisoner: take another look please. --The Photographer 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Thank you, The Photographer, that was very kind of you to fix the image. However, it still doesn't convince me to support it as FP but I'm willing to abstain. Perhaps others will support it now. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Basotxerri: and @Martin Falbisoner: take another look please. --The Photographer 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Despite The Photographer's work to improve it there is still a little bit more noise than I'd like. The area on the boat behind the man looks blown as well, something you wouldn't expect in this kind of light. And, frankly, the composition has too many clashing elements for it to work for me even if it were technically perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Composition should be better (more space around, boat at 1:2), filename should be improved --XRay talk 06:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition -- Thennicke (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - The composition doesn't quite add up for me. I think it might if the boat were further to the right. The most interesting elements of the photo to me are the shimmery water and the reflections of the boat, oar and man, and I wish the reflections weren't cut off or nearly cut off. Of course you can't have everything, and you have to take a photo of the image that presents itself to you. But that doesn't automatically make it featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by User:Chensiyuan - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Extraordinary for 2009, I think, and a thing of awe to me by current standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I wish the clouds were not cut on the top, but this is still good enough for an FA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral chromatic aberration (see notes) --The Photographer 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Chensiyuan, would you like to try tackling that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support nice Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - the CAs are too bad --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose There is a botched cloning stamp job right in the center. Follow the road in the background of the cliff and the two intermingle, the cliff in the foreground dissolves... --Lucasbosch 15:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks for pointing this out. There's a lot of support for this picture. Do you guys think the nomination should be withdrawn? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Serious technical problems. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but not excellent . Too many problems for an excellent vote. Je-str (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose until the technical problems are fixed. Huge wow factor though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per King and Ivar. The CA alone is so egregious that I didn't even bother to look at the noted cloning problems. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question - Under the circumstances, I'd like to withdraw the nomination, but I have a question for everyone: If I withdraw and then Chensiyuan fixes the problems within a couple of days, can the nomination be reopened, since the deadline for voting is January 27? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I would advise you just use the "I withdraw my nomination" tag (search other nomiantions for an example code snippet) which closes the voting and renominate the image (see the rules), which is a cleaner process than making all the users above reevaluate their votes. – Lucas 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn. I think Chensiyuan is offline. If the problems with the photo that are noted above are eventually corrected, it could be nominated at a later date. For now, there are other photos I could nominate. Thanks for your votes and your eyes, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Kids playing Pallanguli.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created & uploaded by Abi blu - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Lucasbosch 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lucasbosch. If the two girls weren't partially cropped, I might very well consider it featurable, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Ikan. Good idea, but composition isn't FP level. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Perhaps a VI or even QI, but otherwise per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 09:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info ANZAC Parade, Canberra, is a boulevarde that runs between the parliamentary triangle and the Australian War Memorial.
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 02:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Bidgee (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support Nice composition but the background is not (due to weather conditions) really sharp. I'd also crop more at the bottom and correct the slight tilt cw Poco2 09:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: Thanks, it's nice when someone leaves constructive feedback. The tilt of the foreground is natural, compare it to the buildings in the background. Maybe the workers should have done a better job at levelling it ;) -- Thennicke (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. it's 3 km to the buildings in the background, so as you say, some heat haze is unavoidable -- Thennicke (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Moscow ParkKulturyR vestibule 04-2016.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 07:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
- Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I love the colors and enjoy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 08:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I just can't keep my eyes off the power lines. The left crop is also a little distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Power lines. Yann (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Cables in foreground and lamppost to the left leans distractingly much. Main subject itself is quite nicely lit, but the overall composition does not convince me, sorry -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Very weak support I have faced this same dilemma so many times myself ... great angle but for the wires. And so many times I've sighed and put the camera down. So молодец for trying where I usually give up. And for doing your best to make them less distracting instead of cheating entirely and cloning them out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Per the others, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support The curves in the photograph are great, even if the power lines distract from it some. WClarke (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 08:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I hope you all like this photo as much as I do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very peaceful! --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 02:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice off-season atmosphere that actually benefits from the subdued color and lack of snow or ice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- week support minimalistic nice. A small crop of the sky and water will be better too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps you are right. But I better leave it the way it is. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 09:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
- Info Inspired in Alvesgaspar minimalist pictures . All by --The Photographer 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support first impression is that someone laid a grid over a regular sky shot. Nicely aligned! --Lucasbosch 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very good idea and an awesome result! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This grew on me. I like the interaction of the windows and the sky. By the way, I don't consider this photo minimalist in the slightest. If it reflected a cloudless sky, that would be different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Only the slightly off tones of some of the windows give it away as not being a gird overlay. And the distorted parts. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Excellent -- Thennicke (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Although it is a bit noisy, I'd indeed apply a tad of denoising here. Poco2 09:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 13:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Doronenko - uploaded by Doronenko - nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Doronenko (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Again, some concerns about overexposure but very nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The image has an embedded AdobeRGB color profile. It is best to use sRGB for web use, see Commons:Image guidelines#Color space and User:Colin/BrowserTest. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like the water in the foreground, but the form doesn't really work for me - I think that to relieve the eyes, more sky is needed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 02:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Beautifully bleak and stark. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Winter-Regnitz-PC310004.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
- Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support Lovely scene, though left crop could be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 02:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- mild support missing something in the foreground (a duck, a branch, a small part of a shoreline, or what else) and the photo will be works much better for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 09:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Miha (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Berdorf (LU), Aesbachtal -- 2015 -- 4550.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Unsharp foreground on the left is slightly distracting to me and might be cropped out, but I don't know what that would do to the composition. And the composition is the main reason I support this picture. It's a kind of lovely miniature landscape, with the cobwebs between the plants accentuating their formal relationship in the picture frame. It's best viewed at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm too distracted by all the plants on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel Case, a tighter crop would to accentuate the main subject would be nice.--Lucasbosch 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I'll crop out a part of the bottom within the next days. --XRay talk 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel Case. Too many random plants that are in focus distract the viewer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others an no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed @Daniel Case, Lucasbosch, King of Hearts, and Uoaei1: Crop is now improved. Hopefully it's better now. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, still doesn't work for me. There are a lot of in-focus plants on the ground, so I don't think there's any way to fix it by cropping. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, this is the first time I realized that you're objecting not to out-of-focus plants but to in-focus plants! You're considering this a macro of the two plants, not as a miniature landscape. I don't think in a landscape you'd normally want everything but 2 large trees to be a blur, would you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak oppose I like the image but I'm not wowed. The colours don't "pop" enough - everything seems too dull. Probably changeable with different processing though. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Castillo de Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-04, DD 41-46 PAN.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 19:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info View of the Castle of Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, Spain. The castle was built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop and stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory. The castle was never conquered and was successfully defended against the King of Castile in the 13th century. The successful completion of the Reconquista at the end of the 15th century ended its military significance. Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Excellent image size, DoF and quality, hight EV, nice composition. --The Photographer 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- only week support <spam> because the resolution can be a bit higher ha, ha, ha ... ;-)</spam> --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - LOL, Alchemist! I don't think you'll get any complaints about the sky or unsharpness with this one. It's just a pleasure to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment stunning image, but the bushes on the bottom right of the image are significantly more blurred than the ones on the lower left. Are they out of the DOF? I made a note in the image. --Lucasbosch 22:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- One of the source pictures probably suffers from shaking blur (the seam can be seen). - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support ---Pudelek (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Amazing view - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Regretful opposeas per discussion above, one or more of the source files are more blurred than the others, and the seamline between sharp and blurred images is visible. See image notes for an example of a blurred spot. I'm jealous of your 5DS R though. --Lucasbosch 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it is that big of an issue on such a large picture though and probably that most wouldn't see even on a moderate large print. The blurred area doesn't cover parts of much interest. - Benh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- And depending on what kind of shots you do, you really needn't be jealous of the 5DS. As it's been discussed, If you are a macro, or still object guy, it won't bring you
anymuch advantage over any other FF or APS-C given sensor of same generation. - Benh (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Benh: 1. I would love to support this image, but the different levels of sharpness and visible seamline because of it are bothering me. Would this image be of less resolution then it might no be visible even at 100%, but given the resolution, these shortfalls are visible. 2. I haven't followed these discussions. I'd love to have more resolution available for my studio shots, just for the sake of seeing more details, so I'm jealous. --Lucasbosch 12:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lucasbosch, I agree a high-resolution sensor has an advantage for single-shot photos such as your studio. We try to avoid penalising photographers for uploading full-resolution photos or huge stitches like this. Try the 50% downsize I link below. That's still 28MP and very sharp. If you'd support that then there is no reason to not support this. Opposing over 100%-size pixel peeping of a >100MP image just encourages folk to downsize prior to upload, and then we lose detail that can never be retrieved. As I'm fond of saying, if your monitor is a standard 100DPI, then this image is over 4 metres wide, and you'd probably view it from a couple of metres distance at least, rather than normal monitor distance. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: Thanks for your thorough explanation, I strike my oppose. I would welcome allowing/encouraging photographers to upload downsampled images instead of full sized ones like this, to hide flaws better and avoid pixel peepers like me. In fact I would have downsampled this in secret if I were in the same situation, as the resolution is plenty even downsampled. But I understand that having sharp parts of the image is considered more desirable for the Commons project than having less pixels but with the whole frame being perfect. --Lucasbosch 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lucasbosch, if the software can downsize on-the-fly then why downsize on upload? Actually, for huge stitches most photographers already downsize a bit to ensure the detail is sharp, which it is for most of this image. I don't see the point in uploading full size if it is soft/blurry all over, and for big stitches there is no value in making people download a big file that is not sharp. When we get folk uploading 6MP landscapes that pass FP, it isn't really fair to to penalise others who don't downsize. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: You say yourself that some people already downsize so others don't have do download a panorma that isn't sharp corner to corner. I don't think this image is any different, albeit being much more resolution. My opinion is that such a panorama should have equal sharpness over the full frame, and not rely on downsampling to achieve this. If there is a soft part, downsample until everything is constistent and thus the seamlines become invisible. I find a 100MP image which is soft on some spots and sharp on others kind of more wonky than a pristine 6MP image. I see your point, too, that you throw away detail on parts of the image in the process. So I wouldn't want to penalize him for not downscaling, but the different levels of sharpness which reveal seamlines, and I don't want to see seamlines. I believe in a pixel perfect uploaded file not reliant on downsampling to achieve even sharpness. Even if this requires downsamling before upload. Agree to disagree ;) --Lucasbosch 14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate you don't want to see the seamlines, and I wish the stitching was better. But you have a choice to examine the image at this level of detail. Nobody forces you to download the full size image and then display it on your screen at 100% while examining it closely. A good review test might be to judge the whole image fullscreen on your monitor, and then to examine for flaws at some intermediate resolution. If you'd support this at 12MP, say, or 24MP, say, then any extra resolution is simply a bonus. I think that unless the image was huge and very soft/noisy all over, then I'd be reluctant to complain about the size being too large. We have a culture here of pixel peeping that harms people's generosity in uploading/creating high-resolution images (vs Flickr where many images don't even fill one's screen). The result is some photographers really do upload 6MP landscapes from their 36Mp cameras and get and expect to get FP. Of course, minor errors only visible at 100% on a large image may be worth pointing out to see if they can be fixed. If you have a high DPI screen, then much of this pixel peeping concern simply disappears. Our standard 100DPI monitors are the equivalent of taking a magnifying glass to a print. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: You say yourself that some people already downsize so others don't have do download a panorma that isn't sharp corner to corner. I don't think this image is any different, albeit being much more resolution. My opinion is that such a panorama should have equal sharpness over the full frame, and not rely on downsampling to achieve this. If there is a soft part, downsample until everything is constistent and thus the seamlines become invisible. I find a 100MP image which is soft on some spots and sharp on others kind of more wonky than a pristine 6MP image. I see your point, too, that you throw away detail on parts of the image in the process. So I wouldn't want to penalize him for not downscaling, but the different levels of sharpness which reveal seamlines, and I don't want to see seamlines. I believe in a pixel perfect uploaded file not reliant on downsampling to achieve even sharpness. Even if this requires downsamling before upload. Agree to disagree ;) --Lucasbosch 14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lucasbosch, if the software can downsize on-the-fly then why downsize on upload? Actually, for huge stitches most photographers already downsize a bit to ensure the detail is sharp, which it is for most of this image. I don't see the point in uploading full size if it is soft/blurry all over, and for big stitches there is no value in making people download a big file that is not sharp. When we get folk uploading 6MP landscapes that pass FP, it isn't really fair to to penalise others who don't downsize. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: Thanks for your thorough explanation, I strike my oppose. I would welcome allowing/encouraging photographers to upload downsampled images instead of full sized ones like this, to hide flaws better and avoid pixel peepers like me. In fact I would have downsampled this in secret if I were in the same situation, as the resolution is plenty even downsampled. But I understand that having sharp parts of the image is considered more desirable for the Commons project than having less pixels but with the whole frame being perfect. --Lucasbosch 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lucasbosch, I agree a high-resolution sensor has an advantage for single-shot photos such as your studio. We try to avoid penalising photographers for uploading full-resolution photos or huge stitches like this. Try the 50% downsize I link below. That's still 28MP and very sharp. If you'd support that then there is no reason to not support this. Opposing over 100%-size pixel peeping of a >100MP image just encourages folk to downsize prior to upload, and then we lose detail that can never be retrieved. As I'm fond of saying, if your monitor is a standard 100DPI, then this image is over 4 metres wide, and you'd probably view it from a couple of metres distance at least, rather than normal monitor distance. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Benh: 1. I would love to support this image, but the different levels of sharpness and visible seamline because of it are bothering me. Would this image be of less resolution then it might no be visible even at 100%, but given the resolution, these shortfalls are visible. 2. I haven't followed these discussions. I'd love to have more resolution available for my studio shots, just for the sake of seeing more details, so I'm jealous. --Lucasbosch 12:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support That bottom right is an issue, but given where it is and the image resolution, I think it can get away with it. -- KTC (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support There is a flawed frame and perhaps the stitching could be improved (IIRC you just use Lightroom - have you tried PtGui with SmartBlend as the blend tool?). But the resolution of 111MP makes this visible at 100%. A reduction (see this link to a 28MP 50% downsize) hides such sharpness problems and the whole image is very sharp indeed. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've uploaded a new version where I cropped the right side a bit to get rid of the area that somehow wasn't as sharp as others. If the result is not satisfying I can offer also this other version with a far wider view. Thank you Benh and Colin for making understandable that images with more resolution are not always comparable with lower ones and users of a camera like 5DS shouldn't be punished for that. It is indeed not as easy as it was with the 5D Mark II to get all images sharp. Poco2 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Colin did most of the lobbying :) And, pardon me if you already knew, but If your pipeline gives you access to the seam mask, it's very easy to edit it and soften the transition from sharp to blurred area. This would give a better result I think, but this take for granted the "common" area between the source pictures is large enough. - Benh (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- The new crop doesn't just chop off a bit on the right, but introduces some to the left. I like the road on the left, but this is a different enough picture that I think you should ping all who have voted so far. It isn't like you just removed a dust spot. As for the other one you link, it is far too wide and also has quality issues. There is still an issue with a seam (to the right of the rocks) that could be handled better if, like Benh says, you took control over the join there (or used Smartblend, which I find is often better are placing seams and not crearting blurred seams). -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @The Photographer, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, and King of Hearts: @Johann Jaritz, Tomascastelazo, INeverCry, and Martin Falbisoner: @Code, Cayambe, Michielverbeek, Gnosis, Pudelek, and Benh: @Lucasbosch, KTC, and Colin: Dear all and sorry for the disturbance, I just wanted to let you know that I've cropped the image (mainly on the right) to get rid of the blurred are. I'm informing you just in the case that this change would affect your already emitted vote. Poco2 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Poco, I like the second crop the most. Now the main subject is no longer centered, and this is a bit weird IMO (but this still has my support). I don't garantee anything, but just in case, I offer assistance to implement the above mentioned solution. - Benh (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your offer Benh. Will look into it this weekend and probably come back to you then. Poco2 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer the crop from the time of original nomination. There's still a visible seam in the new crop, which wouldn't go away unless the you crop much closer to the rock. While now the rock the castle is sitting on is actually centered, the castle itself is now a bit off to much to the side to me. Then again, if the new crop was the only version offered, I would still had supported so I'm certainly not going to object now. -- KTC (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please go back to v2 and ignore the naysayers. It was The Perfect Composition. KennyOMG (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Both crops are fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think that this one is "better", however, both are perfect to me, IMHO --The Photographer 11:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @The Photographer, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, and King of Hearts: @Johann Jaritz, Tomascastelazo, INeverCry, and Martin Falbisoner: @Code, Cayambe, Michielverbeek, Gnosis, Pudelek, and Benh: @Lucasbosch, KTC, and Colin: Dear all and sorry for the disturbance, I just wanted to let you know that I've cropped the image (mainly on the right) to get rid of the blurred are. I'm informing you just in the case that this change would affect your already emitted vote. Poco2 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 06:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great scenery --Llez (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak support Great location and image quality. The tree at the bottom, second from the left, is cropped though - which prevents this from being a great photo, IMO. It's almost always possible to try a different location/perspective and avoid such problems. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded another version with a bit more of image on the right and with no unsharpness (I got rid of the last frame from the panorama and realized that the result was better than the previous one). I don't feel that I've to ping all 27 voters for the new version, but can do it if something believes that is required. Poco2 16:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Much better comp this way imho (maybe the right could take a bit more but good enough as it is). KennyOMG (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Halavar (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by dronepicr on Flickr - uploaded by User:Dronepicr - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I think this is an outstanding drone picture. My only hesitation in nominating it is that I hope people don't vote against it because the angle of the photo makes the ground diagonal, instead of straight, but I nominate it, anyway, to see what you all think. P.S. I didn't see a category for drone or aerial pictures; if you know of a good subcategory to add to the "Category" line, please feel free to add it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support No, I find the ground fine; as long as the horizon is level, which it appears to be. Great find too! Really lots of wow, and for a drone pic image quality is ok, but could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I found it in COM:Photo challenge, where this month's challenge is drone pics. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I really should involve myself with Photo Challenge more, but I wish there was some "QI" barrier to the nominations or something - unfortunately some of the winners are shocking from a photographic perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think that's because the judges have to work with the submissions they get. When they get higher-quality submissions, the results improve. Quite a few FPs have been among the top 3 results in photo challenges over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- True, but an example of what annoys me is that File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viadukt.jpg, which was uploaded under the competition "bad weather", came 27th out of 41. If FPC contributors were judging it would've been top 3. Anyway this isn't the place for me to beef :P -- Thennicke (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably best to discuss that at Commons talk:Photo challenge, I imagine, but I hear you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Just not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- You will have to rework the colors here, think blue is +, green is missing. Some saturation maybe. --Mile (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the colors and composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, I struggle to decide what the subject is --Lucasbosch 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - No argument on "no wow", but to me, anyway, the subject seems obvious: the bright area smack dab in the center of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The file name is, mainly, "Caye Caulker Belize", which describes the islands, so already the file name is not optimal/confusing if the white thing is the main subject. Also the white thing seems to be only captured in part, there is a missing part on the bottom left, confirmed by satellite images. --Lucasbosch 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for expounding on your point of view. I don't share it, but I understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment It needs a tilt and perspective correction. Poc o2 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt User:Dronepicr is monitoring this, so I don't think any edits will be forthcoming from him/her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --M★Zaplotnik (edits) 11:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info i monitored the whole discussion :) The subject in the middle is called the split:"A narrow waterway known as the Split divides the island in two. Some people state that the Split was created by Hurricane Hattie in 1961 which devastated Belize City, however that is a myth." You can read this here on wiki (eng.). I made some photos of caye caulker from different perspectives. You can find them in wikimedia too. In this photo i wanted to show how caye caulker is divided. The focus here is not the split-- dronepicr (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 02:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Fronteiras do Pensamento - uploaded by Алый Король - nominated by Алый Король -- Алый Король (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Алый Король (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose An interesting portrait and good composition, but the technical image quality is just too bad (noise and lack of detail) --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Uoaei1. lNeverCry 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Not only per others, but I find that object at left very distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 09:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
- Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 04:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose All water reflections of trees are beautiful. I think this picture is missing something, like brilliant colors or an outstanding composition, that would set it apart from the others. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Info @Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts, Jkadavoor, Michielverbeek, and Martin Falbisoner: @Livioandronico2013, INeverCry, and Agnes Monkelbaan: I added more saturation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The colors are nice, but nothing quite worthy of FP in terms of the subject IMHO, it's not so interesting. I would have liked better separation of the trees in front and the background trees, to make it more visually appealing. --Lucasbosch 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I like the contrast beween the dark trees in the foreground and the brighter trees in the background --Llez (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Llez. I also have to say, particularly in response to King, that having looked at more than my share of water-reflection images while creating and populating those categories, this one did make me stop while scrolling through here. What to me works is that the trees sort of suggest a colonnade, and a slightly irregular one at that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for putting into words what I think a lot of us had probably noticed unconsciously. Christian Ferrer, the slight change in the new edit is fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Good job Christian. Quite a nice natural abstract. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support Wow is limited but I enjoy the symmetry and composition, along with good quality Poco2 08:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lucasbosch --Miha (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 09:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Tools
- Info Swiss made needle file set. All by Lucas.
- Support – Lucas 09:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - More great work! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I know this is just a b&w image, but can you restore the EXIF information and colour profile please. Perhaps a stage in your stacking workflow is removing the EXIF data. It is possible to copy EXIF from one file (tiff, jpg, etc) to another using EXIFTOOL. Btw, if these are thin files, why is focus stacking necessary? And how would a 20mm increment help -- surely they are less than 20mm thick? Also, information about stacking and stitching is best put on the file description page, and there are templates to help with this. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: Done 1. I restored the EXIF as you wished. Which is a bit important as this image is not grayscale, it does contain color. 2. Focus stacking was necessary because at f/8, the best aperture of my lens, the DOF wasn't large enough. The 20 mm increments are from left to right in the image, not in depth, I moved the camera along the files to get more resolution. I added that info to the description texts.– Lucas 13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 06:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A file of files ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great Poco2 09:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 11:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Sharp and great, but could you please make the annotations smaller? Right now they cover most of the picture at thumb size and that makes it hard to actually click on the image (when used in articles) to enlarge it since you only hit the annotations. It would be sufficient if the annotations covered just half the files, the handle part can be left out. A similar change would be appreciated on the other version as well. --cart-Talk 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done I experienced this issue earlier, but I was too proud of my nicely aligned annotations to change it ;) – Lucas 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Iturrieta - Fagus sylvatica 01.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Great composition and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support Very striking image, great use of B&W here. I do note, however, that the background is somewhat unsharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your vote, King of Hearts. The background isn't sharp because there was fog, breaking up and closing again. Of course that could lead that someone could dislike this... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per above. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Special Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Monochrome was a great idea for this one. Brings out the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Just for my curiosity: can I see please the color version too? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Please give me a couple of days, I cannot prepare this right now. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Alchemist-hp: Here it is:
- @Alchemist-hp: Here it is:
--Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 06:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Even the foreground doesn't really look sharp to me. It is harder to appreciate it in B&W but I miss details here. I undestand the choice of B&W in some cases but not sure about a natural landscape. Poco2 09:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Recently I'm experimenting a bit with B&W. In this image I opted for this because these winter colours were quite boring: a bit of green grass, fog, clouds but rotten wood and wooden textures. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Paris-7957a.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info created by idobi - uploaded by idobi - nominated by Idobi -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Stunning. I love the way the moon appears. Quality could be better especially on the right side but sufficient for FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose great composition, vivid colors, excellent mood - if only image quality were better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I really like composition, perfect moon-clouds situation. Its not so sharp, but saw camera is not the latest model.--Mile (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - It either is or is not an FP, based on the results, regardless of what equipment is used. And in this case, I think it's too noisy and unsharp to be one of the greatest night cityscape pictures, although the composition is beautiful. I would welcome any efforts by idobi to address these issues, because I'd love to be able to support this picture, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I find it a beautiful picture, but the quality is not great.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Even given that it was a long exposure, we've seen that these images can be less noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Martin Poco2 08:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per opposers. And the file name is not accurate.--Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 10:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - very fine - but the file need more info and perhaps the template:artwork. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Has frame; so {{Art photo}} if needed. Jee 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- DoneVilly Fink Isaksen, and thanks Jee --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry fill in the data in Template:Artwork. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Villy Fink Isaksen, hope OK, now. Jee 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry fill in the data in Template:Artwork. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question I don't understand the frame crop, either you show it enterely or you don't, but just a portion is not a goot solution IMHO Poco2 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support, although I suppose more of the frame wouldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img3.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 20:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
- Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me, just a very good QI --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Uoaei1. Dull colors don't work well against cloudy sky and the forms by themselves are not enough to overcome this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Lucasbosch 12:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose needs crop and better light (sun) --Mile (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're wrong in both points. --A.Savin 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support ---Pudelek (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know the spot but the crop looks fine to me. The light is just dull and the result is IMHO that the images lacks texture. Per Daniel the subjet itself doesn't compensate that. Poco2 08:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--M★Zaplotnik (edits) 11:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 22:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
- Info I'd been watching this little miniature landscape with a small "waterfall" and all for some days. The sun is very low this time of year and between 2-3 pm the sunlight hits the water and the whole thing explodes with color and the structures come alive. There is no saturation or any color post fix made. The photo is made from five exposures with the most appropriate ones for each part in the pic selected. (Additional info: Believe it or not, but this is a very scary photo. Normally in late January, we are knee-deep in snow and ice in this part of Sweden and we are longing to see things like this sometime in spring (March-April) This year however, winter and spring have alternated on a weekly basis. In all my life I've never experienced anything like it and neither has anyone else I know. When this photo was taken, it was a balmy 6 °C (43 °F) instead of the normal freezing temperatures. I find this very worrying.) All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- cart-Talk 22:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, the falling water is not realistic from combining the different shots. Charles (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Charles, in what way is it not realistic? The different exposures were to reduce the highlights on the reeds and turn up the shadowy parts of the cliff to the left, the central bit with the water is untouched. Please compare with the this one-shot photo where the falling water is the same. --cart-Talk 10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've highlighted an area which I guess has been stitched/cloned and some water drops are not falling vertically. It's no big deal and could be fixed I'm sure and of course I would cancel oppose. 11:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm simply puzzled by this and I have to check the originals when I get home tonight. It was a bit of a challenge to correct the tilt of the photo since the different "lines" of water were not all falling straight down. Some had a different angle since they "followed" angle if the grass they were dripping from. --cart-Talk 12:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Charles, I realized that I still has the photos in my camera so I could check them here. I've uploaded the two original photos I used for the cliff with the water and the for the pool. It seems like Mother Nature is playing a little trick on us since the water is indeed falling in all directions, just like in the resulting photo. If you still want me to remove that part, I'll do so of course. --cart-Talk 13:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good Valued image, but the information, that spring has come to Sweden very early this year in not enough for FP nomination.--Karelj (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ahum... that is not why I nominated it, that was only additional info. The nom is for this little miniature landscape with great colors, I've clarified it now. --cart-Talk 10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I expected this. So now you do nominate this image as Valued image and everything will be OK. --Karelj (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh you misunderstood, I'm not objecting to your oppose, that is perfectly fine. :) I just wanted to clarify the nom. Colin proposed that the nominator should explain a bit about their nom and I simply wrote too much. Thanks for the VI suggestion but I'm not that used to that section and I wouldn't know which scope to place this in. --cart-Talk 13:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I understand why you nominated this picture: As you say, you find it a miniature landscape by itself. However, I really prefer the composition of File:Drainage water from a forested area dripping into a ditch 1.jpg, with the diagonal and the bit of sky that puts everything into context and gives my eyes some relief. Perhaps the brightest highlights in that photo are blown; I'm not sure. But otherwise, I find that a good, interesting, featurable photo, maybe with just slightly toned-down highlights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Highlight are toned down on that photo. Let's see if others share your thoughts on this. Thanks anyway.--cart-Talk 13:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I find that the water dripping itself is not very well visible, and this is kind of the main purpose and action in your photo. Also as mentioned above, the ghosted water splashes are another detriment for me . The overall image is lacking contrast and separation between objects (like shooting straight on a grassy slope), while the lighting is good. Sorry, not FP level IMO. – Lucas T 13:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Ok, I get it, no need to drag this out. Thanks for your attention and your comments. :) --cart-Talk 14:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
File:2015 Winobluszcz trójklapowy 02.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 12:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Abstract. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Figurative to me. :-) But I like it, too. Instead of calling it abstract, I'd say it has a very dynamic, flowing, satisfying structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the image doesn't impress me enough. The crop is quite narrow, so there only are so many leaves in frame, instead of a whole side of a house. I can imagine the rest, but I'd like to see it to be more impactful than that. --Lucasbosch 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It's pretty, but I'm not really sure whether the subject is supposed to be the leaves or the drainpipe (Or is it supposed to be some kind of woodwork? See what I mean ...). Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 04:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- SupportAnd 7... --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose It doesn't say much to me. Per Daniel, sorry. Poco2 09:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support nice detail --Miha (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info Facade of ARD-Hauptstadtstudio in Berlin-Mitte. ARD-Hauptstadtstudio is a television studio in Berlin operated jointly by the members of the federal broadcasting network ARD. All by me -- Code (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Code (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm bothered by the slight curvature of the lines. Otherwise great shot. – Lucas 17:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch: Really? That's interesting. I thought on the contrary that the curvature was compositionally lifting the picture above FP treshold. --Code (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Code: I see what you mean, but IMO unless the actual building is curved, the image should either have drastically curved lines for effect or have perfectly straight lines. I'll see what others say about it. – Lucas 18:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch: Ehm... the buliding actually is curved. --Code (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Code: thanks, I wasn't aware of that. – Lucas 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm a big fan of repeating patterns and simplicity and you have a great eye for both. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per above discussion, the curved lines are there for a reason. – Lucas 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great colors; the geometric forms in this picture look so perfect. The blue reminds me of this picture posted a few days ago. WClarke (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral makes no wow --Miha (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Agree with Miha. We have better compos for this kind of shots Poco2 09:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with Miha and Poco, but since no-one has the courage or conviction to oppose, I won't stand in front of this racing locomotive, either. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm not here to judge your choice of subject. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Flehmendes Pferd 32 c.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created & uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support good catch :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Lucas 17:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - That's quite interesting! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support a funny one, we don't have many of these Poco2 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support funny indeed :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Funny, but I'm wondering about the resolution and the file size. --XRay talk 14:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Yes! :) --cart-Talk 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Fagaceae./ Natural Phenomenon in Netherlands
- Info With hoarfrost covered oak leaf (Quercus). All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support nice and interesting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Ordinary subject, but very well processed -- Thennicke (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Miha (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support Nicht catch but I believe that the detail could be better and it is a bit too dark Poco2 09:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support, although I think some of the bottom could be cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Great! --cart-Talk 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Pfarrkirche Going, 160623, ako.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info Interior of the roman-catholic parish church in Going am Wilden Kaiser (Tyrol, Austria). All by me -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This is one of two beautiful interiors of parish churches you recently nominated to QIC. The near corners are unsharp, so you might consider a crop if it doesn't damage the composition, but otherwise, it's great. (Aside: I really like the fresco in the dome; do you have another picture that includes the whole thing and/or do you know who painted it?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion about Fresco |
---|
|
- Support Jee 09:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photo and sharp from left to right. Wrt Ikan's comment, the only bit "unsharp" are the corners of the nearby pews, which are out-of-focus. That's to be expected and in no way harms the composition and square framing. I'm really not sure why one would expect or need them to be in in focus. Are we going to start focus stacking church interiors now too? Please, let's accept reality a little. Having some parts out-of-focus is an indication they are not important and the eye is led elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion about DoF |
---|
|
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A lot in this photograph to take in. Great quality. WClarke (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I understand that the light conditions are challenging here but some important areas of the pictures are too dark Poco2 09:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I really don't like the style of the church (imo Baroque is quite messy in general), but well executed photo --DXR (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:54:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The contrast on top and right just look to heavy to me (in other words the darker areas are too dark), the result is overprocessed. It doesn't happen in the middle. Poco2 09:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Diego's right but still very good --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support, following my !vote on the enwiki FP nom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- What? --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
File:F-22 Raptor flies during the AirPower over Hampton Roads Open House at Langley AFB Va., April 24, 2016.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 20:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
- Info created by Senior Airman Kayla Newman - uploaded by MsaynevirtaIMG - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Reguyla (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Competently taken, but unexciting compared to other featured pictures of jet fighters. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel. The tight left crop is a noticeable flaw in particular. lNeverCry 04:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as others above. Yann (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel, the crop is overall to tight, it cannot breathe Poco2 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose--Miha (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
File:2017 E-papieros mod 1.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 13:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm in favor of turning it to be vertical so the display can be easily read. Which would also require removing the drop shadows and creating a mask for a pure white background. I can do it, but I'll give Jacek Halicki a chance to do it himself. – Lucas 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Lucas: I think it's a bad idea. Vertical photo will look unnatural due to the line of the fluid level in an atomiser. Besides in Wikipedia look better horizontal photos. As for the background is I do not like pictures of the cleared background, IMO look unnatural, in practice such a background does not exist. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm not convinced about the orientation, would have preferred to have the top higher than the body. Furthermore the subject itself is not wowing to me Poco2 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The orientation and presentation fails to inspire me at all. Wrt Lucas point, I don't favour such photoshopping as extracting an image with a mask. It nearly always looks fake and is hard to do without tell-tale edges. Better to learn how to shoot an object with a white background in the first place. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose because of orientation and general lack of wow. I would rather consider this as VI --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with the others here. Vertical would've been better in my opinion; if you stood it on its end, and made it symmetrical. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thennicke. Technically leaves little to be desired, but I think a readable display would help. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
File:CC lightning, Albury NSW.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2017 at 01:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info An example of cloud-to-cloud lightning
- Info all by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Support --Miha (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)- Oppose Seems like out of focus. --Mile (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose nice, but sorry Thennicke, this is out of focus. The crop is unfavorable too. Missing the part in the down below. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File:20160810 Sehtatgyi Paya Pyay Myanmar 9479.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2017 at 07:21:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created & uploaded by Jakub Halun - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - A most impressive Buddha statue, making all the other structures below it look like toys. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose An impressive statue to say the least, but the light is not doing it any favors. The face and much of the body is in shadow and that makes it look flat and uninteresting. Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination cart is right. A photo of this statue that has the same composition in fuller light would be an FP; this is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
File:1 pano cuiping yangshuo 2016.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 01:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info The karst topography of Cuiping village, Yangshuo, Guangxi in 2016
- Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I don't love the bushes in the near right corner, but in the context of this huge panorama with great light, they almost don't bear mentioning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak support not very sharp on the right but is very big,so in general is good --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support It's slightly unsharp and noisy at 100%. So what? It's 124 MP for crying out loud! Lovely scene, beautiful colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per KoH. Still I wonder why it has to have a size of
80 MP80 MB. Reduzing it to 20 MP would not mean a susbtantion drop of quality (specially considering that the size is influenced by the noise) Poco2 09:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I assume you meant 80MB? Yes I agree but I guess it doesn't matter too much -- Thennicke (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right, sorry, yes, I meant 80 MP. I corrected it above. It is not the world but there is no point in doing it like this IMO --Poco2 11:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Breathtaking scenery, and very good timing for the shot. A bit noisy, but it looks to come from a lack of postprocessing and is not distracting at all. Could be improved though if author is willing to get back to the raws. - Benh (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 15:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support yes, a bit noisy, but: simply "only" wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Noise forgivable; you have to get very deep in the scene to see it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wow overcomes noise here. --cart-Talk 18:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Babylonia spirata 01.JPG, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support – Lucas 17:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful shell, very well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 20:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Perfect --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Miha (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Routine :) Poco2 09:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 15:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Love the pattern! Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support A well-made collage. --cart-Talk 18:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Iridium-1 Launch (32312419215).jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 21:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
- Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by Juandedeboca - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Juandedeboca (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Several dust spots need to be removed --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support "Spaceship. Now with Gentle Glide™ applicator ..." Sorry, as an old MST3K fan, I couldn't resist that one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Technically good photo with decent composition + great encyclopedic and at least potentially great historic importance = a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support also agree with Uoaei. --Mile (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Exposure/midtones should be brighter. I understand that the image was underexposed to capture the rocketry, but the rest should have been lifted in post. It looks unnatural right now - too dark. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Agree, a bit too dark, still FP to me. Poco2 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I quite like this composition, but please crop out the stray bit of wood near the near left corner. I'm also wondering what the photo would look like if it were extended a bit further to the right to encompass more trees. I'm guessing that's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not, but I cut off to the left --Pudelek (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a little while before voting, but as I said, I do like it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors and clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Conditional support Nothing like this nice summery scene to grab my attention on a wet and cloudy January day. However ... it would be better if the purple tinging on the clouds could be fixed or somehow ameliorated. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think that the purple is not bad... the storm was near --Pudelek (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I really like that wooden bell tower, and the rest of the composition - especially the light and clouds (the purple doesn't bother me - I've seen purple-rimmed clouds with my naked eye) is good enough to satisfy me. I think this photo is special enough to be among the elite. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- weak oppose Personally I find the composition too heavily weighted to the left -- Thennicke (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Marmora Formation closeup.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 16:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Rocks and Minerals
- Info: all by СССР -- СССР (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
* Support -- СССР (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Definitely a very interesting photo for VI, but no great composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't look like a FP to me for it being a flat texture, no visual impact. --Lucasbosch 17:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan and Lucas. Perhaps a smaller portion of it might have worked. Texture needs to be more uniform. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't fully agree with the other opposers; this could have potentially been FP if it was processed properly. Contrast - or rather, the lack of it - is the big issue this image has IMO. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. Alternative version uploaded with improved contrast. СССР (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative
edit- Info redeveloped from RAW, improved contrast. СССР (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- СССР (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Same issue as above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Igreja do Bonfim, Porto, Portugal.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 13:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info All by David1010 -- David1010 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- David1010 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Good for a smartphone, but insufficient quality. Charles (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Requires perspective correction (it is leaning in). Also lack of wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. A smartphone isn't a good choice. The image is not sharp enough, JPEG artifacts and the image needs perspective correction. --XRay talk 15:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per XRay – Lucas 15:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the perspective, and having been taken with a smartphone | 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. |
Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Temple of Olympian Zeus Athens Greece 2.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 11:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Ava Βabili - uploaded by Ava Βabili - nominated by Argos of Athens -- Άργος (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Άργος (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Decent quality and pleasant light, but some little perspective corrections are needed, I mean the verticals in background should be vertical (the building at far left, and the street light on the right) Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Too many distractions for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral per Christian; this should be easy to fix. Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice, but not very imaginative neither exciting. I think that better can be done with this wonderful building. Looks like a postcard. A very good one, but a postcard. My taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The focal length and crop are very "snapshot-like" -- Thennicke (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Historical part of Porto, Portugal.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 14:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info All by David1010 -- David1010 14:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- David1010 14:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Good for a smartphone, but insufficient quality. Charles (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nice scenery but insuffcient quality. --XRay talk 15:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per XRay – Lucas 15:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose With a DSLR this is potentially featurable; with a smartphone it exposes the limitations of that kind of camera. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I really like the peaceful natural scene, the light and the birds. The mood is somewhat spoiled by the plane and its contrail, and that's the only reason I didn't nominate the photo, myself. I think we should accept this as part of "nature" as we humans have made it, but that's a decision each person has to make, and it's really the major element of content in which the innovation of the Impressionists like Monet in "Impression: Aube" deviated from the tradition of idealistic depiction of pure nature for city people that goes back to ancient Rome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Request + Comment a crop of 10-15% of the empty sky, will be better works for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done Thank you, I think you're absolutely right, it's better with less sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support it works better now. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I won't change my vote, but I consider the new crop unfortunate, because it crops out a higher-flying bird that was flying in the other direction. I think the composition was better and more peaceful with more sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I have no problems with standing on the tracks since it is explained in the description that these are museum tracks used only in the summer. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- SupportAnd 7...--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose unsharp, boring composition --Miha (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Support Composition and ligthing, but still missing some wow. Cannot tell you though what I'd have done differently here, maybe getting closer to the rails to strength the perspective and get a higher score there, not sure. Poco2 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support For me, what the dark side.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio Hasht Behesht, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 75-77 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Антена пелистер 2015.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asphalt and frog.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthochaera chrysoptera in Jacaranda tree, Albury NSW.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sprinkenhof (Hamburg-Altstadt).Innenhof.3.29135.ajb.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Шар Планина на нежните утрински зраци.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ferlach Ressnig OEDK-Flusskraftwerk 28012017 6232.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 pano xinping yangshupo (cropped).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise over Borobudur.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of a Young Man by Sandro Botticelli - Louvre.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Makam al-Nabi Sain Mosque.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern Grey kangaroo, Majura Nature Reserve ACT 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge London 22.jpg. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bombus soroeensis - Jasione montana - Tallinn.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haltern am See, Stausee, Anleger -- 2016 -- 2859.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hirtshals Fyr 2015.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandvikens AIK vs Västerås SK 2015-03-14 04.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Cloudy Trolltindene Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète cf05.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shrine basilica vailankanni.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gambian epauletted fruit bat (Epomophorus gambianus).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Umschreibung by Olafur Eliasson, Munich, December 2016 -02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fernsehturm, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 40-42 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laetiporus sulphureus 2017 G01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rotring S0214750 with Rapidograph 0.5 mm drawing 1.5–15 mm circles.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunsets of Umm al-Fahm6.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Full moon over Gullmarn fjord at Holma Marina 1.jpg