Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2018

File:FIS WC NK Ramsau 20161218 DSC 8642.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 17:01:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's way too few winter sports showing up here so I thought I could look up for a really nice photo showing all the action happening while a 10km Gundersen run in Ramsau. -- Granada (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but the parking lot in the background is too distracting and destroys the composition for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question to you Granada, as you opposed this nomination for excessive noise, I wonder which level of quality you expect here, and why this image at 2500 iso could be more successful ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an action shot made at 1/1000 of a second and at half past three on December 18th it already became darker, especially in the shadows where I was sitting. I do tolerate noise in an action shot considering the circumstances way more than in other shots as here the pure details are not that important. Finally the noise in that mentioned coypus was selectively reduced which worked well, the image could well have been featured afterwards, but it was withdrawn for other reasons, before I could comment my own vote. --Granada (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also don't find the background overly attractive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Skiers are great but, per others, the background offsets that. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I also had my concerns regarding the cars in the background, but I wasn't sure if it's really that much destracting. --Granada (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:December 25 at 1 am 2017, Québec City Limoilou, Canadá 03.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2018 at 21:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
Info All by -- The Photographer 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pleasant, but not special enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the building leaning to the left ? Roof is not horizontal -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's really weird, the walls are absolutely straight but if you observe the horizontal joints, you see that it's the roof which isn't straight (horizontal). Between the photographer and the building might be a slight angle, too which would increase the effect. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice stuff, but you will have to change colors (temp) --Mile (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the white balance is wrong. Unless you are unfortunate enough to have a building lit by sodium lamps, then the white balance of the snow or fascia boards and sofits should be neutral. Also I wonder if you have rendered this brighter than it was. On the JPG, with Camera Raw, if fix the white balance, reduce the exposure by -1 or -1.5 stops and increase contrast +25, perhaps add a little clarity, then I get an image that looks like it was taken at 1am. The centre portion then becomes a welcoming oasis of fairy lights and is a lovely contrast with the very ordinary urban building and scene. Perhaps still not quite enough wow for FP, but an interesting photo. -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I sort of like the symmetry and while I think Colin's suggestion is worth taking, I am opposing on principle because of my frequently-stated position that pictures of Christmas lighting displays do not qualify for FOP in countries that do not grant that exception broadly (or at all) to sculptural works (and even this seemingly random assortment of lights is still a work), and apparently per this DR Canada only grants that exception to permanently installed works, which this is not. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks Basile Morin , I applied a perspective fix and yes thanks Mile and Colin I applied a selective white balance and the exposure and contrast fixed commented by Colin and finally Daniel Case IMHO the main subject here is the House and the street and not the non professional light, however, you could nominate it to deletion if you think. Thanks everybody --The Photographer 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benasque - Aigualluts - Pico de la Mina 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 09:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- excellent B&W PumpkinSky talk 12:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good example for B&W and excellent. --XRay ^talk 13:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Die Schwarzweißumwandlung überzeugt mich nicht. Grün und Blau zu dunkel, Aquamarin und Orangekanal ist zu hell, zusätzliche Schatten, die im Original nicht existieren, in der Summe ist das was ganz anderes als wäre es ein Schwarzweißfoto. --Ralf Roleček 14:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Ralf, thanks for your comment but regarding the shadows please keep in mind that this B&W is not the conversion of this colour image but a different, independent shot, this is why the shadows are different. You're right, I pulled the blue channel down to get more contrast (about the green I'm not sure). I understand that this is a normal procedure for developing B&W images as it's the same effect as if I put a yellow filter on an analogue camera. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support appealing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because I'm failing to get why B&W here. - Benh (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem, thank you! B&W: because there weren't many colours either, this is about fog, textures and contrast and mainly because I like it But it's possible that it worked better as the this colour image. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- HalfGig talk 14:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support and Merry Christmas B&W certainly took down the noise in the sky! Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice misty image --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ IMO B&W was a good choice. --XRay ^talk 15:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: Every vote is welcome, of course, but you already voted some days ago. Thank you very much! I've struck your new vote. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I checked it before ... Sorry. --XRay ^talk 07:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 13:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Spain

File:BennyTrapp Natrix helvetica.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 16:00:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created & uploaded by Benny Trapp - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For our sake, it's non-venomous. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added an English file description. PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Too much unsharp background, especially on the right. I'd suggest a radical crop, which I've noted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with a crop but not as radical as Ikan's. I would leave more space around the head, top and right. Margins are important to highlight the subject. Then I would cut a quarter and not a third -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the photo the way it is. We don't have enough wildlife photos that show the depicted species in their natural environment – from a biologist perspective, information about the habitat is also valuable. So, I'm not super happy about removing this additional information. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC) P.S. Unsharpness in photos generally helps the viewer with understanding what the main subject of the image is. I feel like this photographer got everything right…[reply]

To me, this is a question of composition vs. scientific/encyclopedic usefulness. My suggested crop simply works better as a composition in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the crop you suggest, parts of the snake are out of focus. Without the crop, it's kind of nice with the snake in his habitat.

My eyes don't move well around this composition. That's my main concern. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Even though when I see photographs like this, I wonder if it is a museum display or someones pet on the lawn. If it is either of those, the photograph could be much much better....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As I mentioned, I appreciate the encyclopedic value of the picture as it currently is, but the composition doesn't work for me and all the unsharp areas in the background impede eye movement. Part of the problem for me is that they're neither smooth enough (which would come from more fading) nor sharper, but are in the unhappy medium that's aggressively assertive and greatly distracts me from the snake. Obviously, quite a few of you react very differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is too large. Nothing of interest in this blurry background. But the head of the snake is nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the idea of the crop. I do appreciate that it's nice to see the animal in its environment, but there's too much blur there. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the right use of Depth of field resulting in a excellent blurry background to eliminate distractions. --The Photographer 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I wouldn't like the proposed tight crop. (I agree with The Photographer.) — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 18:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Fuyu persimmon fruits, one cut open.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 16:03:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find the spots on the table (or whatever the surface is) too distracting. If they're cloned out, then I'll be able to evaluate the photo. If they aren't cloned out, I would be likely to oppose even though the fruits and their reflections are lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thank you for removing the dust spots. I'm delighted to support your beautiful picture, and Merry Christmas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're so welcome, Ikan! I didn't realize there were so many dust spots. Thanks for helping to improve this picture! Merry Christmas and all the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. I'll be working on Christmas afternoon, giving cheer to some folks at a nursing home by playing a lot of tunes for them. After doing that for a few hours and sometimes snapping a few cellphone photos on the way there or back, it's great to see beautiful photos on this site. I've learned a lot from spending time here this past year, looking at so many beauties and reading what you all have to say about them. I'm glad I can give something back. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 18:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Homless selling flowers in São Paulo downtown.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 17:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- The Photographer 17:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Crop feels a little tight on the right, but a very well-composed photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 15:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great documentary look ... I like the way the flowers offset the rundown building behind them. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 17:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this; per Daniel Case, Great documentary look. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively ordinary scene and lacking sharpness, Sorry --A.Savin 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with A. Savin. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – looks blurry, lacking crisp sharpness and dynamic vibes. Sorry, CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin --Granada (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 18:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Königsberg Burg Südansicht 0499-PSD.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 08:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personnally don't like people so I would clone the two on the left (if possible). But it's stunning anyway, good shot! --Basotxerri (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dramatic and a good composition. The two people are so tiny in the context of the photo, I had to look really hard to even notice them, and I just consider them a detail of the scenery. No need to clone them out, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take this only as a personal note, only my impressions or like I would prepare the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive lighting. --Cayambe (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straightforward composition, no wow and (much) underexposed. - Benh (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- At first I thought it was too dark but at 100% it's captivating. The darkness is like a vignette zooming you into the center, nicely lit castle. PumpkinSky talk 14:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PumpkinSky --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. A valiant effort, but ultimately suffers from underexposure. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. As PumpkinSky said: The underexposure guides the eye to the main subject which is lit by the sunlight. I like this composition very much. --Code (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh and Daniel, regardless of the perfect composition. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really surprised that this heavily underexposed picture gathers so many supports. I see what effect is wanted. But this were just not the proper conditions to get it. When one looks at histogram, nothing is past the middle. When exposed correctly, the effect (where the castle stands out) disappears a bit. Looks more a big technical mistake than a feature. - Benh (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe it is better to look at the motif and not at the histogram. A large part of the picture is certainly underexposed, but that's how the light situation was when the sun lit up the castle suddenly for only 1 minute. The dark parts of the picture are without any important information except the clouds where it fits well in my opinion.--Ermell (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 13:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Pörtschach Promenadenbad Brücke zur Blumeninsel 23122017 2136.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 04:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw this photo I was instantly WOWed. The colors are superb, it's tack sharp, the water is clear, the plant in the lower left gives it some depth, and I love the way the bridge, with its gentle curve and superb details, comes in from the right and leads to a vanishing point in the middle of those trees in the left third of the photo. PumpkinSky talk 04:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PumpkinSky. There have been a lot of FPs of Pörtschach, but perhaps this motif is different enough for people to not consider it appreciably redundant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Btw., Pörtschach is a cultural hotspot that can't be featured enough, see here (5:27) - for those who speak German, know the context, and have some sense of humour... ;-)) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Enchanting HalfGig talk 11:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sweet! Atsme 📞 16:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would clone out the two thin vapour trails, if you can do it carefully. -- Colin (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I blew it up to full size it was practically asking me to be my desktop (I second Colin's suggestion, though). Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eyecatching Poc o² 18:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 13:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:17-12-14-Flughafen-Madrid-Barajas-RalfR-DSCF1008.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 20:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flughafen Madrid-Barajas, Eingangsbereich, links die Sicherheitskontrolle

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Flughafen Madrid-Barajas, Eingangsbereich, links die Sicherheitskontrolle, all by -- Ralf Roleček 20:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 20:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I actually like it which it why I took the pain to open it fullscreen... and it's not symmetrical. I think those shots should be. - Benh (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 00:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh, suggested crop see note --A.Savin 12:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Die Säulen sind nicht symmetrisch, siehe hier. --Ralf Roleček 20:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It think this photo doesn't have to be symmetric. The original crop is perfect for me. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose compo, like captured in the middle of nowhere.--Mile (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support One would wish for pure symmetry, but it isn't in the original. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Not quite sure what you mean, but File:Barajas_Airport_(Madrid)_(4684560779).jpg is much more acceptable from a "symmetry" point of view, so why not here? Here the assymetry can be noticed even on the thumbnail (Now that I know about it in my case) and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't have taken a big effort to leave the annoying right pilar out of the frame. If people like it non-symetric though, I guess there's no arguing. - Benh (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The supports are NOT symmetrical in this case, see here. --Ralf Roleček 21:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If u r right, then there was a least a way to render them "more" symmetrical as I've shown File:Barajas_Airport_(Madrid)_(4684560779).jpg. - Benh (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there is the posibility from other points. But my photo show no symmetric supports. Symmetry is not a criterion to FP. But i knew, symmetric photos are very popular here. --Ralf Roleček 22:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Benh. I looked at other photos. There is symmetry here but not in this photo, which is a mistake and quite a big one. The claim "Symmetry is not a criterion to FP" is simply nonsense. The FP criteria are not defined or limited to some handful of agreed-upon features. While the building is amazing enough this image will likely pass, I am also confident that practically anyone else with a DSLR could improve on it by simply taking more care where to stand and how to point their camera. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Eureka Tower (top), Melbourne 2017-10-30.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 06:53:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Australia
Info created & uploaded by User:Crisco 1492 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this a good composition of abstract shapes that instead of being created on a canvas or as a relief are already present in part of a building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this picture needs perspective correction. It gives the impression to be smaller on the top than on the base, which is certainly a wrong view for such architectural image. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from other pictures online that it does not actually get narrower in this part of the building. Crisco 1492, would you like to do a perspective correction? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 14:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Almost a Mondrian building. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective correction needed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris Woodrich then I'm neutral now, as it's a nice design but I'm not loving the lighting on the left side. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support As photographer. Sorry for the late reply. I was on holiday for Christmas. Basile Morin, I've straightened a bit more. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you. I find that makes the composition feel more resolved, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tight crop works perfectly here --Poc o² 18:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – such a beautiful skyscraper. Photo is very sharp and clean. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Australia

File:Immerged tree in the Mekong with boat.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2018 at 03:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Laos
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, lovely, and tranquil. PumpkinSky talk 03:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent image to look at during this cold week. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support BTW: It looks like the image isn't at full resolution. It would be nice to see the full resolution. --XRay ^talk 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done The decision to shrink the resolution of this file was motivated by the comment of Smial in this discussion. I uploaded too versions of this tree : one shot with my tripod, and this one shot handheld with a moving boat. The tripod version was uploaded in full resolution, while this file nominated with boat was shrunk due to the different settings, in order to increase the visual sharpness at full size, and to improve the speed of downloading. I'm not sure there's a big difference between both, but now the full resolution for this one is online too. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basile I think you misunderstand Smial's comment. The resolution requirement for QI is low, and historically some bird photographers uploaded small images that were heavily downsized. So Smial's point is that if those got accepted for QI at 3MP then why are we complaining about issues only visible at 100% on a 27MP image -- that just punishes photographers from uploading full-size images and we all lose. Btw, that bird is a great image, and anyone opposing it at QI needs to reorient their priorities for at QI. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, Smial wrote : "in the past we have accepted images of this kind, which were downscaled to 3 Mpixels or even less to get better visual sharpness". Then, from that comment, I understand the images have been downscaled to improve visual sharpness. Maybe your interpretation is different, but Smial said what he said. Nevertheless, your idea is valid, and I understand it well, too. However I believe that reducing the size can be a clever thing to do, in some cases, above all when the subject is really blurry at 1:1. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for bird-in-flight photography the long telephoto required can mean the image isn't great at pixel level so some downsizing may be appropriate if the image is really soft [and sometimes such images are also quite heavily cropped]. Also at least one past FP bird photographer downsized in order to retain commercial value in his full-size images, which wasn't encouraged but grumblingly accepted because the photos were very good. There are a few other situations where I think downsizing is reasonable. For example, very high ISO images taken at a concert that have thus lost much pixel-level detail. Or stitched photos where perspective distortions have stretched some portions of the frame, magnifying pixel-level issues. But generally we wouldn't expect anyone to downsize a daylight standard..wide-angle photo or a studio photo, because there's really not any excuse other than poor technique or bad equipment. It is a vicious-circle if people start routinely downsizing images to improve sharpness, then reviewers get unrealistic expectations of sharpness, which encourages further downsizing... -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm just not going wow here. The boat is in shade and the people are facing away. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin here, I don't think the composition here is stricking, you have better ones, Basile. Poc o² 16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. --Ralf Roleček 20:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 03:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian roller (Coracias benghalensis benghalensis).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 13:10:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~jpg artifacts and posterization on background, oversharpening filter applied (camera or software)~~ --The Photographer 14:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looked good to me @The Photographer: , but new version uploaded with zero sharpening and better NR on background. Charles (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The posterization still there. My recommendation is to separate the bird and the background in two layers, applying Gaussian blur to the background only and being very careful not to create a shaded edge. Look in the history of this file how @Biopics: applied this technique. --The Photographer 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp I uploaded a new version with the noise reduction on the background, however I rollback this version, if you are agree you can let this version on top. --The Photographer 01:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you; your version good. Charles (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the bird's great, background issues are neglectable... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. I really don't give a damn about the background, which IMO is good enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin, per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The edit certainly improved the background, which was noisy even just full-screen. Also better exposure levels. There's still a small amount of colour noise in the white blobs which your Canon seems to be prone to, so if you are handling the background NR separately, you might want to try increasing the colour NR there, as long as it doesn't interfere with the bird. -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your assortment of birds is incredible, Charles --Poc o² 18:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 21:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Merisk - Eurasian oystercatcher - Haematopus ostralegus (1) copy.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 18:08:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created and uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sweet picture. I'm guessing this is a couple - any way to tell which one is male and which one is female? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No difference. Charles (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice! Atsme 📞 16:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 18:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 21:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes

File:Papilio machaon maiting.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 14:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by LG Nyqvist - uploaded by LG Nyqvist - nominated by FredN -- FredN (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FredN (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutral Downsized image Thanks for upload the full size file LG Nyqvist!! --The Photographer 14:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full-size now uploaded; seems fairly high quality to me, and the composition gives me a bit of a 'wow'. :) --Peulle (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It looks like the upper one is female and is exposing her eggs for the male down below, but please identify which one is which. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LG Nyqvist (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Pretty sure that the individual at the top is the female. Compared to pictures of other females. The body between male and female is slightly different[reply]
Support Wonderful -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 11:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Atsme 📞 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No doubt, one of our finest Poc o² 18:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent (please change file name to mating some time!) Charles (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LG Nyqvist (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Yes sorry, saw that I spelt the word wrong. Going to change it later on[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 21:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:1896 BancoEspañolCuba 10pesos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 23:29:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by the American Bank Note Company and Hispalois - uploaded by Hispalois - nominated by Hispalois -- Hispalois (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hispalois (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. It's surprising to me that it was printed in New York when Cuba was still a Spanish colony, 2 years before the Spanish-American War. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good remark Ikan Kekek. That New York printer was a very powerful company that had the monopoly for all US banknotes and had been printing those of Spanish Cuba for several decades already (see example from 1872). After the US invasion of 1898, Cuban currency production ceased but the American Bank Note Company still printed a series of banknotes for the "National Bank of Cuba", a private, US-owned institution, in 1905 (example). These banknotes were never circulated and the US dollar remained the only legal currency in the island until 1934. Thanks everyone for your support! --Hispalois (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting observation, Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 18:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Rosa 'Sheila's Perfume' 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2018 at 15:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have liked to see that group of leaves below the flower in their entirety, but I will Support anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus on the left part and lack of sharpness -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The unsharpness is not sufficient to bother me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ++ for texture & colors! Atsme 📞 16:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A rather sad specimen. And unadventurous composition. -- Colin (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 18:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakvere ordulinnus - Rakvere castle.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2018 at 12:28:35 (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 Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really appeal to my eye, and technically weak wrt processing and detail for the relatively small image size. We've got a lot finer "at night" photos of buildings. --Colin (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per others. I think that the colors are interesting, but there is no "wow" here for me in this photo, and I get the impression that the photo has had heavy post-processing. Better luck next time. --Pine^✉ 04:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sternbergia lutea showing the different parts of the flower.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 09:22:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info created by Manudouz - uploaded by Manudouz - nominated by Manudouz -- Manudouz (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Manudouz (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A bit blurry and in shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and left and right crop is too tight. PumpkinSky talk 13:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – too dark, not enough light on the flower. Lack of sharpness. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de María Reina del Mundo, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-12, DD 61-63 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 17:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Cathedral-Basilica of Mary, Queen of the World, Montreal, Canada. The construction of the cathedral, ordered by Ignace Bourget, began in 1875 in order to replace the former Saint-Jacques Cathedral which had burned in 1852. The building is a scale model of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome and the new church was consecrated in 1894. In 2000 the cathedral was designated a National Historic Site of Canada. All by me, Poc o² 17:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful. Some areas, mainly the corners, might benefit from a bit of sharpening if that's reasonable to do. Is it actually reasonable to do that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Orisol - Ermita de Santikurutz 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 09:57:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the contrast between the left third and the rest of the photo is fascinating. PumpkinSky talk 13:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and underexposed (is it a trend??). - Benh (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. --Karelj (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - To my eyes, not enough is going on in the composition for me to love the photo, though I appreciate the complementarity of shapes between the clouds and the slope of the land. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all opinions. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:20171004 UWCL SKN-MCW StPoelten 850 1369.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2018 at 14:10:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Granada (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support both as sharp and as dynamic as one could hope for. Well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I disagree with the previous reviewer; this isn't even a QI as far as I'm concerned. Looks like something went wrong in processing the image - look for instance at the yellow text on the blue shorts.--Peulle (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image has been QI'd with the exact same arguments as from Martin and I like the image for those very same reasons. --Granada (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Peulle. Looks like overdone NR (and selective on top of that, it would explain the "yellow text on blue shorts"). - Benh (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uploaded a new version! --Granada (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless cache issue, I don't see much (any?) improvement. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced sharpening to nearly zero. Now it's a cropped sooc-jpeg. --Granada (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting backgroud. Moreover blurry a little bit. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One thing that bugs me enough for me not to vote to support is the way the white patch on the uniform of the otherwise red-shirted man visible over the shoulder of the woman in the yellow and blue uniform seems to stand out in disproportion to its importance. The moment you've captured is exciting, and I'm willing to overlook a bit of distraction from the presence of part of a player who's partly cropped out on the right side, because that's simply normal on soccer fields during games, but there are a few relatively small things in the background that stand out and bug me. Another one is that piece of green between the legs of the player on the right, and there's also a little bit of white on the right leg of the white and red uniformed man in the middle between the two others. These little things bug me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your comment. I would have loved to see this level of arguing in the discussion of this image: File:London Bees v Millwall Lionesses, 15 April 2017 (062) (cropped).jpg (there's not even a ball near her ...) and in general when looking at the images here: Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports#Team_sports. There are not a lot of images in total and a lot of them where you could argue with a distracting background, blurriness, being downscaled to hide blurriness and other things. My point is not to remove those images from FP but to review sports images under different aspects than landscape photography. (Yes, I usually know not to disturb, sorry about that) --Granada (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not disturbing; you're expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion and we're having a discussion. I notice I didn't vote on the picture you linked, and I think that's probably because, although I like the composition, there are similar kinds of small things that would have bugged me at about 300% of full screen size. It's possible that my standards for sports photography are unreasonably high, but I don't think I can make myself feel wowed or make myself unbugged by the kinds of small things I mentioned above. As a general point, I'm absolutely in full agreement with you that any kind of action shot has to be judged differently than a shot of a more or less static view, and I absolutely won't vote to oppose a feature for this photo, but I thought I'd let you know why I haven't felt able to support it, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Peulle; also I wish the focus had been more on the faces than the shorts. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrew my withdrawal --Granada (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't be discouraged - standards are high here. Most of my FP noms are declined.--Peulle (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJust seen this nomination and for what it is worth, I'd have supported. Granada is right that many existing sports photo FPs have same "flaws" as have been pointed out here. I think there is a bit too much noise reduction applied and don't understand why the new version was uploaded with "less sharpening" when sharpening wasn't the issue (though sharpening without a mask may increase noise in out-of-focus areas, which would encourage you to add more NR to combat it). But this is a 15MP image taken at 300mm f/2.8 and I don't think there are many folk on Commons who could take a better one -- the DoF here is tiny and quite a challenge to get the people sharp. Most commercial sport photos we see are <2MP. Looking at this full screen, the players pop out in 3D, which is great. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Colin: Withdrew my withdrawal

CommentThe D850 was still quite new to me on that day and I shot in jpeg with the in-camera noise reduction set to standard and no in-camera sharpening at all so I can't do anything about the NR. But all in all I am quite satisfied with this setting because when shooting RAW (e.g. during the hymn ceremonies for taking portrait shots) and working with them in post I often end up with just about the same amount of NR. The original version was sharpened with around 93% of masking in Lightroom, but that still exposed some weird "wobbly blur" around the number 19 of Julia Tabotta which I did not notice at first. --Granada (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great sport image. I really don't see the issue. Yann (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I designate the dynamics of the scene nicely captured. --AWeith (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egunsentia Gaztelugatxen.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2018 at 19:49:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Gaztelugatxe in The Basque Country, early morning view. created by Ebaki - uploaded by Ebaki - nominated by Xabier Cañas -- Xabier Cañas (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xabier Cañas (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scene, but I'm afraid the quality isn't quite there for me to vote in favour of it. The level of detail is lacking and there is quite a lot of chroma noise.--Peulle (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the wow factor is enough to overcome the minor technical defects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How about some noise reduction? I'd probably vote against a feature of this photo in this condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, sorry. It's a pity: this location is absolutely stunning, the author captured the image in very favourite conditions but there are technical issues. By the way, could you remove the dust spots, please? --Basotxerri (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and Basotxerri. A strong wow-effect, but unfortunately very unsharp. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per others. I like the picture very much, but there is too much noise. The photo is also quite blurry and unsharp. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question A very well-chosen point of view. However, there are too many darkened areas. Is there a possibility to correct for the light issue? -- Manudouz (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:João Alfredo, Pernambuco, Brazil 06.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2018 at 23:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- The Photographer 23:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great scene, wish it were sharper. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. PumpkinSky talk 00:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The man is sharp enough, the boy less so, but they're in motion. The rest is background. Very well-shot scene, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry not quite working for me, especially with the silver pole and cropped silver car. The man is looking round at someone/something which we can't see and this leads the eye over to the right of the photo, which is lacking interest such as more people. Also the boy and man are in shade, which I'm sure you've tried to brighten but there is no getting away from the problem with the sun in the wrong direction. -- Colin (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The man is watching the road before crossing it and IMHO I do not think they are in the shade, they just have a dark skin tone. --The Photographer 18:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the shadows of the bicycle wheels, and the brightness of the sky, the sun looks to be in the top right of the picture, so most of their faces and bodies are in shadow. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I can see, you are right and I tried mitigate this problem raising the shadows. Maybe less DoF should work better too. --The Photographer 18:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral For me ride the man left more or less out of the picture.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, why has this to be shot at ISO 1600 which produces noise that was reduced in post leading to less sharpness in the details? Next the car to the left is very much disturbing the view, the man on his bike has no lead room to the left (his front view) and finally the sun stood in the "wrong" direction as pointed out by Colin. And it somewhat looks like it's been downscaled. --Granada (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken from a car, answering your question about the ISO. --The Photographer 18:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality high enough for a Q1 but nor for a FP. IMO not sharp enough and too much shadow in the face of the cyclist --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is striking and as a journalistic image would be fine, but in short, the background creates issues-- the image was taken a split second too late; had the bicyclist been about 10 feet back, in the intersection, the framing would be FP worthy. As it sits, given that technical details matter here, I have to, reluctantly, say no. Montanabw (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cropped car, the shallow DOF, the noise and the weirdly incomplete shadow of the bicycle and its riders. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments well supported --The Photographer 18:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forcella del Pana.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 07:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An equilibrated composition with a wide palette of colors and a variety of elements. -- Manudouz (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A stunning scene but the image seems tilted, or am I wrong? --Basotxerri (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfectly framed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a very layered composition, and the tiny guy against the backdrop amuses me. --Cold Season (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well done. PumpkinSky talk 13:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe didn't need to be sharpened quite so much, though. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 13:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Loojang 05.05.2017 - Sunset 05.05.2017 copy.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2018 at 13:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kristian Pikner]
Support -- Kristian Pikner (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ PumpkinSky talk 15:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral changing to neutral for now. I agree the processing could be better. PumpkinSky talk 20:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vigneting and excesive filter of vibrance, dramatic, sharpen edges, noise reduction and downsized image resulting in a irreal scene. --The Photographer 17:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed to death. Though I'm sure Google AI would think it 10/10. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, for now... but there's so much potential. Please redevelop your raw, Kristian --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --AWeith (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 13:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fighting white-tailed eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) (2).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 14:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AWeith (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Beautiful angry birds.--Ermell (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- PumpkinSky talk 15:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome scene, well captured, particularly the face of the left fighting bird. I also quite like the far left bird leaning away, looking at the others fighting, as if it's thinking: "oh great, here they go at it again..." The emotions of the scene have been captured on film, and I like that. :D --Peulle (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes for wildlife action! -- Colin (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- really great photo of a difficult subject. HalfGig talk 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – gorgeous image, pleasing to the eye with the right balance of composition. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! - Benh (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action. Charles (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture, very good DoF. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this vote was added after the voting period was over but I think we have enough for a feature anyway. :) --cart-Talk 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes

File:Mekong pirogue at sunset in the 4000 islands.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 05:02:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info Mekong pirogue at sunset with two men working at a power line to connect a partially submerged shelter in the 4000 islands (Si Phan Don) near Don Puay, Laos. The purpose is to create a stand to sell drinks there in a few days, when the level of the river will have lowered. Created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty, but I don't know what "immerged" means. Dictionary definitions I looked up seem to mean "plunged into a fluid", but as opposed to "emerged" or "immersed" (neither of which I think you mean), it's not a word I've ever heard anyone say or even read in print. I think you mean "partially submerged". Also, that looks more like some kind of shelter than a hut to me, I guess more or less what's called a "pondok" in Malay - a shelter used for work (for example, in Malaysia, traditionally, there were pondok in rice fields, where farmers would stay during harvest time to scare off the birds and other pests that were eating the rice plants). Is its purpose for fishermen/-women to be protected from the sun while fishing? Something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ikan. The expected word was probably "flooded" (or submerged ?) Sorry, English is not my mother tongue. In French we say "immergé" and I found this translation here. Thus, description has been altered on the file. I also agree with "shelter". Do not hesitate to fix it when necessarry, I will appreciate. Cheers -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good level of French for conversation and reading when I'm in practice, but I'm unfamiliar with the word "immergé". However, "flooded" would be inondé, to my knowledge. I think "partially submerged" is what you want, because the condition is normal for this shelter, right? And it's only partially submerged, not completely under water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because of my lao roots but there's a lot of empty space in my view. Looking forward to seeing other noms from you :) - Benh (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - raw power lines in/over water? Jiminy Cricket! Atsme 📞 16:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This crop per Benh. I'll make a crop suggestion that I think greatly improves the image and would encourage you to consider an Alt nomination here. -- Colin (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin for your suggestion, but your crop is too tight in my opinion. We need a margin under the pirogue to feel the space. Also, the two long electrical wires are important elements that I don't want to cut, because one is linked to the shelter, and the other one is linked to the boat. My image tells a story. If a wire was hidden, it would affect the content and I find it more interesting to imagine the distance of the boat through this submerged line to follow intuitively, than to miss it after it quickly disappears under water. A single wire would seem too unsignificant, alone. But I already made a cut from my original file to adjust the margins bottom-right, and this version displays the scenery with the best crop I could find -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A nice mood that I think the suggested crops go a long way with. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Laos

File:Notre Dame HDR.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 15:00:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/objects
Info created by Prosthetic Head - uploaded by Prosthetic Head - nominated by Prosthetic Head -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite cool, but there are chromatic aberrations and the detail level isn't quite there. The file title should also be more to the point.--Peulle (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Small photo and the quality is not good enough to compensate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback, I will keep trying to improve my photography. --Prosthetic Head (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matador in the Plaza de toros de la Real Maestranza de Caballería in Seville.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2018 at 07:28:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect composition, excellent image. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image has a beautiful composition, balanced blend of color and vibrant facial expression and movement. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blood action photography--The Photographer 23:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a halo around his head. Charles (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I wouldn't mind if the halo was fixed. --cart-Talk 09:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and

Question You are right, I reduced the halo and uploaded a new version of the image in Wikimedia Commons. But how do I change the version on this page? Do I need to re-upload the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates? --Ввласенко (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You don't need to do anything. This page, and the nomination page, shows the image as it is on the file page, but the system is sometimes veeeery slow to update the transcluded image. Sometimes the change can be seen directly, sometimes it takes hours. You also need to refresh your cache (F5) It's like the Wikimedia servers run on transistors instead of chips... --cart-Talk 13:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! But, sorry, - to refresh your cache (F5) - wthat you mean? --Ввласенко (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It means to close and open your web browser. F5 is commonly used as a reload key in many web browsers and other applications. (клавиша F5 выполняет функцию обновления во многих браузерах и программах.) --cart-Talk 15:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Ввласенко (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Halo still there unfortunately and the left hand appears to have been heavily processed. Colour/texture seem strange. Charles (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blood on his hand and face tells us this is not staged, and for me, makes the image. Do we know this fellow's name, by chance? Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was one of the three young matadors who were on the arena in Seville, May 5, 2013. They were not well known yet, I did not remember their names, sorry. Undoubtedly, he was the best as the matador and as the actor. I hope to show others photos too. --Ввласенко (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 16:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Älvdalens Camping - Grillplats.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 14:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by LG Nyqvist - uploaded by LG Nyqvist - nominated by FredN -- FredN (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FredN (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Underexposed --The Photographer 14:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support December in central Sweden - that is correctly exposed. This is Helsinki at noon in December, as an example. --Ralf Roleček 06:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. I don't completely love the trees behind the cabin, but they're a minor detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (BTW: It would be nice to see a user page for example with the language skills.) --XRay ^talk 15:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeppers! Atsme 📞 16:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it is under exposed, and the bit with the cabin and the sunset is nice enough. But there's something lacking in the composition for me, and the lake and trees seem to have some strange smudged areas. Perhaps it lacks a human element. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is more unsharp than I'm willing to forgive in this image. Also, I agree with Colin that the composition isn't quite working ... it's like the shelter and the landscape are fighting for control. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could envisage that a 16:9 crop reducing the snow field below in front would improve the compostion.--AWeith (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Himmelberg Pfarrkirche hl Martin Grabplatte Balthasar von Pibriach 20062007 133.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 08:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, very good lighting -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Spurzem PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks a little leaning aside. Can you please check/correct the verticals and horizontals. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Uoaei1: Thanks for your comment. The verticals should be upright now. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 00:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - The man is sharp and has a nice presence, but I'm wondering if you could make the plaque above him a bit sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is featurable about this image? Some people don't geht the feature-ability of sports images (that's o.k.) and I don't get what so outstanding about this image. It has technical flaws (the coat of arms on the top is unsharp as it becomes unsharp to the edges all around) and it simply does not wow me at all. There are tons of these grave plates on commons, they all look the same to me. --Granada (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty much per Granada: no wow for me. --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others opposers. Even if top notch quality, that is just a picture about anyone can take with accessible modern gear. We have QI for that. - Benh (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this page Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Sculptures, as we have a similar FP here File:Saint-Malo_-_armes_de_Bretagne.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per coat of arms on top of image being unsharp, as noted by others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I appreciate your honesty very much. Thank you! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camellia japonica NBG.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 22:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Ericales
Camellia japonica blossom at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite good. You might want to mention in your file description how big that flower is - how big was it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you, Ikan. I'm truly glad you like it. It is not very big, only about 4 inches (10 cm) in maximum diameter. Info added to file. PumpkinSky talk 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors, great composition, perfect saturation and rendition. Everything fits. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 0!3:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 11:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Nice to see you again Atsme ! PumpkinSky talk 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I feel a centered flower taken from "above" it doesn't stand out. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Benh just for the record, it wasn't taken from above. It was taken horizontally, basically parallel to the ground. I thought of cropping out the two buds in the upper right but IMHO they really add to the photo. PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes sorry. It's my poor english but I really meant "perpendicular" to it (which I think is "simple" artistically speaking, but good for encyclopaedic purposes). Also, I was looking at our current FP to see why I didn't like this one, and I think what's missing to me is more contrast, as it looks a bit dull here. And yes, the context could be more aesthetic to me, but that really is just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Benh: I've added more contrast. Once the cache catches up, I'd like to know what you think. Thanks for the suggestion. PumpkinSky talk 21:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful. --Cold Season (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose latest version but would support previous. PumpkinSky I'm not sure I understand Benh's "contrast" argument, though possibly he means more to do with separation from the background than fiddling with sliders in Lightroom. What you've done is blow the red channel. The result if you compare the throat of the flower you will see much less detail in the petals. Yes the composition is very unadventurous, so no marks for that, but the specimen is in fairly good condition and agree the buds are a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Colin: Thanks for pointing that out. I see exactly what you mean. I've reverted to the previous version, or 21:22 on 27 Dec. I invite reconsideration. PumpkinSky talk 16:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. -- Colin (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: You last nom makes my point. I like the petals much more there. Here we have less contrast, and the image is not very "punchy". @PumpkinSky: I like that you listened to (my) complaints but sometimes it's good to stick to your original ideas, no matter the votes. It the suggestion had been a clear improvement like "Way too many noise, please apply NR", it would have been something else ;) And I was the only opposer! - Benh (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: I thought it was worth a try. Trying different things is how we learn. Thanks for participating in the nomination. I've been looking at Colin's recent nomination and am thinking about what I think of it ;-) PumpkinSky talk 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so readers can follow this, my "last nom" is this one and it was prompted by looking at the category when assessing this nomination. Wrt comparing this nom and mine, one is an artistic presentation and one is a specimen presentation. In the former, I think technical issues are less important and in the latter technical issues (and quality of subject) need to be close to perfect. -- Colin (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Benh, no wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I think it could be improved by cropping the sides to square it up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: I wouldn't want to crop out the two buds in the upper right because as I (and Colin) mention above, I think the buds add a lot to the composition. However I would consider cropping in the left to just outside that leaf that sticks out at the 7-8 o'clock position. PumpkinSky talk 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky: Well, if you don't want to crop out the two buds then don't do any cropping, because I think it looks best centered. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 09:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delightful detail and given that it is small, the composition is striking. Color stands out, nice and sharp. Maybe a wee bit of cropping, per nominator's comments above. Montanabw (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Order_:_Ericales

File:Musée Galliera, Paris 21 July 2017.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2018 at 13:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Joe deSousa - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. :) --Peulle (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 15:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support good architecture photo. The colors on the flowers seems to be a little oversaturated, but that's a minor point. --Pine^✉ 04:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice cloud -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:LED and USB mini fan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2018 at 08:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- Antan O 08:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 08:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I don't find this fascinating enough for FP. The camera wasn't quite perpendicular to the fan so the centre off and this is really crying out for a square crop. -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually do like this. I have one question: Is the posterization actually how the light looked, in concentric bands of separate colors? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case, I'm not even clear what this is or why I, the viewer, would find it more interesting than a drawn graphic. Montanabw (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An idea with possibilities, but this image does not deliver them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anfiteatro de Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 49-57 HDR PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 08:04:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Exterior of the Pula Arena, an amphitheatre located in Pula, Croatia. This Roman edifice was constructed between 27 BC and 68 AD and is among the largest surviving Roman arenas in the world. At the same time, is the best preserved ancient monument in Croatia and the only remaining amphitheater having all four side towers with all three Roman architectural orders entirely preserved. All by me, Poc o² 08:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~You have double border in good part of, like echo (anoted). Similar down in Ljubljanica. Bad equipement ?~~ I think its a bit too yellow. --Mile (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a new version improving that halo, Mile, Poc o² 17:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All your photos of the amphitheatre are amazing. - Benh (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest you harmonize the WB between that one and File:Anfiteatro_de_Pula,_Croacia,_2017-04-17,_DD_58-63_HDR_PAN.jpg for the article (artistically, it doesn't really matter in my opinion) - Benh (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, Mile: I've reduced the yellows Poc o² 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, and a very interesting perspective! -- Manudouz (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basotxerri, I got rid of the car on the left (doing some cloning work instead of croppint it), thanks, Poc o² 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose So much to like about this. I could almost forgive the almost psychedelic color and the evidence of processing. But ... the weird bright area on the right looks almost like the building is growing fur there, and it is matched on the left by an area in the window where the stone looks bluish-gray. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Beschimmelde Nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) tussen afgevallen blad in verval 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 15:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Clitocybe nebularis
Info This photo shows the decay process of a mushroom Clitocybe nebularis in its natural environment. Mildewed Nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) amongst fallen leaves in decay. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)* *****[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely earth tones. Atsme 📞 16:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Atsme. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Манастир Трескавец IMG 8899.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Filip.pere - uploaded by Filip.pere - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'm not seeing any wow factor here. --Peulle (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 15:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle, sorry. --A.Savin 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice photo. I'm not sure I can support it for FP, but it isn't one with the current haphazard-looking left crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you were interested in but it just didn't come through. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 04:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laughing woman.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 08:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Processing of background has blurred much of the subject's hair. And does she consent to this unflattering image being used? Charles (talk)

Unflattering ? Why unflattering ? That's a wonderful laughter ! Natural ! And she looks so happy ! Her face is full of joy ! Is it a problem ? Her expression is communicative, and she makes me laugh too, lol :-) This was shot in April 2012 during the lao new year. She laughed again when she discovered her on the paper, then I don't think she finds this picture "unflattering". Maybe rather funny. But though, are these portraits unflattering : File:Grape_worker.jpg, File:Mauritania_boy1.jpg, File:KnutSteen.1.jpg, File:Tonle_Sap_Siem_Reap_Cambodia_Girl-begging-for-money-with-snake-01.jpg, File:Senescence.JPG, File:Vietnamkrieg_Bootsfl%C3%BCchtling_1980.jpg, File:Old_zacatecas_lady.jpg ? Because they are all featured. There's a PR template on this file. And no laughing woman in our featured pictures of people until now -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is rare to catch a hearty, natural, good laugh in a closeup photo since most people just freeze up or strike a pose as soon as you point a camera in their direction. She looks joyful and nice but the hair caught in the processing is a bit of a bother though. It is fixable and I will support if that is fixed. Btw, the lines of her lips are exquisite! --cart-Talk 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The processing is still poor - please check out the hair @W.carter, Johann Jaritz, and PumpkinSky: Charles (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I can overlook some artifacts and color noise in a bird photo and look at the bigger picture, I think I can live with a few stray hairs here. --cart-Talk 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I agree with Charles that it is unflattering. Not that one is required to take a flattering photo on Commons, though. The focal length is wide-angle which creates a big head vs small body for the closeup viewpoint here, and makes her head appear much further forward of her body. That focal length is fine for a group photo or environmental photo but not a close portrait like this. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This portrait was shot at 16mm and it's just oustanding File:Central_African_Republic_-_Boy_in_Birao.jpg. A wide angle for portraits creates a proximity. This woman at 24mm looks as she is. This is not a fisheye. But even though, she would look so funny, because yes, that's the most important here -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer is not a close as you are here. I'm not going to debate lenses as the image speaks for itself. You are too close to the subject for comfort and the result is not pleasing. And I'm not really impressed that you think it would have merit to shoot her with a fisheye so "she would look so funny". If you use a lens like this, close up, you get an in-your-face rounded big head, small body look as we see here. I'm not interested in laughing at her so one shouldn't photograph someone that way to generate laughs, unless you want to mock them. -- Colin (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mock them ? Because shot at 24x1,6= 38mm (equivalent full frame) ? Wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even on full frame, if you stick a 35mm wide angle close up to someone's face, they will look unpleasantly distorted. It is simply a fact of subject-camera distance. Anyway, I've better things to do on a Friday evening than arguing about elementary portraiture on the internet, so unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I've better things to do on a Friday..." We can see that, gentleman. But my portrait is a crop of a picture shot horizontally, then probably the same distance than the photograph above shot at 16mm. No problem, we can disagree. So enjoy the week-end ǃ Have fun ː-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per reasons given above. --cart-Talk 13:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it just doesn't move me.--Peulle (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Colin. And Basile, the other portrait you refer too makes good use of the (moderate) wide angle to show interesting context. This one doesn't IMO. The timing isn't fortunate either. The laughing really isn't contagious here (I was even wondering "how the... is she feeling here"). - Benh (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basically per Colin. Additionally I think the background is too busy for such a portrait. --Code (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:American Fascism.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 12:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by KDS4444 - uploaded by KDS4444 - nominated by KDS4444 -- KDS4444 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KDS4444 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- unsharp i high resolution. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problem of perspective and problem of sharpness. This 150 Mpix image is far too large for its effective resolution, which starts showing weaknesses at 20% -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment KDS4444 you appear to have accidentally upscaled the image hugely. Please save the JPG at normal 100%. -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I find the composition confusing. Because of the title I thought it would be about neo-Nazis. But then I saw the sign at the top thought, maybe it's a company? But why name a company that? Then I saw the saw the file description and it said it's the red shoes, but they're a very tiny part of the photo. PumpkinSky talk 15:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but per PumpkinSky and Colin. Might reconsider if issues were fixed. Picture Googling "American Fascism top quality" shows that this is some sort of sticker used in a variety of places. 1 & 2. Two web addresses can be seen on the stickers. "The Little Red Shoes" appears to be an alt name for the photo. --cart-Talk 15:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sigh. This is akin to the photo currently at FPC of the Venezuelan police woman....bringing politics into FPC. I find this whole meme highly offensive. PumpkinSky talk 17:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - PumpkinSky, I don't really understand the sticker here or whether KDS4444 is making a political point or just found the scene odd and worth photographing. But please, politics absolutely does belong on Commons and at FP. It is part of life and to be documented. Would you deny this political photo if it had a free licence? Buy a book of Magnum photos and you'll see many of the best and most famous photos ever taken are political. [and see that most would fail FP's obsession with technical perfection above anything else] -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colin you're contracdicting yourself a bit here and in the Venezuelan photo. How'd you feel about "UK Fascism Top Quality" in a photo? The BLM photo is vastly different. All that being said, I've made my point and I'm not going to belabor it. Others can carry on or not as they like. PumpkinSky talk 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think I am. The photo is allowed to make a political point (provided there's nothing dishonest about the photography or processing), but our description text is not, which is my complaint in the other image. We're not here to judge the politics good/bad/evil, but I guess from your example, that's exactly what you are doing and turning your offence into an oppose. And to me, letting one's politics or moral values influence your vote is what should not occur at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Colin, that doesn't even dignify a response. PumpkinSky talk 01:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We certainly need political photos here too, without them there would be no photos for articles on some of the most important events in history. We should also be able to feature them if they are legendary, excellent, of historical importance, whatever. Example. What is crucial though is to describe them in a neutral way. I'm not objecting to the photos per se, just keep the tone they are presented in factual per wiki guidelines. --cart-Talk 18:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though neutral policy applies to the description on the file page. On talk pages (like this) I think we are allowed to state personal opinions and views, in moderation and within the context of the photo. -- Colin (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but keeping a level and neutral tone when nominating a photo at FPC is also better since it won't create undue bias pro or con the image. --cart-Talk 18:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't understand the debate about the political content of a photo. Why on Earth wouldn't a sticker, regardless of what it says, be a reasonable subject for a photo, within the bounds of the taste of any viewer to consider? I also don't believe in being overly influenced by a photo's title. Regardless of the title, this is a photo of an urban scene that looks like a corner in Manhattan's Soho. It includes the referenced sticker, the red shoes that are mentioned in parentheses in the longer title, the police/fire call box and several other elements. As for the motif, I think it's interesting, but I don't think the photo is executed in a compelling way. If it were a bit sharper, the verticals were corrected and the blown-out light on the building were successfully dialed down in a realistic-looking way, I think it might be a worthy FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let me be clear about the context here: my mother and I were walking around Manhattan with a pair of little red shoes we had purchased in Chinatown in 2005, and at one point she put them on top of this fire box and I took a picture. It wasn't until later that day that my brother-in-law looked at the picture and noticed the "fascism" sticker. The sticker was not part of the intended photo at all, but it happened to be there by surprise. No political comment was intended when the picture was taken. That others feel the picture has an overbearing political commentary, which I do not deny the picture conveys, are not commenting on the picture, which I believe is interesting: it has an a-HA moment in it, a record of a street scene in Manhattan in 2005. I did not place the sticker nor intend for it to be in the photo. But isn't it interesting that it is there? Or so I thought. This nomination looks like it has pretty well been torpedoed. I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kungstorget 8 Lysekil 4 - bw.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 22:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Architectural elements
Info Starting the new year with a couple of odd noms: graphic photos. This one is made to emulate the perspective used in many graphic novels where the art is all about high contrast and lines crossing at odd angles, with scenes often made in urban settings. (recommended soundtrack while viewing. ^^) All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 22:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very good use of lighting. PumpkinSky talk 02:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just doesn't work for me... maybe not "extreme" enough. I kinda like #3 though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Per Martin. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 23:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea, and I think it works here. Daniel Case (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, experiment done. Thanks for your input! :) --cart-Talk 10:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg, delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 15:02:43
Current

Proposed

Info I'm proposing the current image file to be superseded by File:Along the River During the Qingming Festival (Qing Court Version).jpg. The new image file is larger in size as well as clearer and higher in quality, in which smaller details are better discernible. It maintains the colors as given by the museum source. There's no digital manipulation of the source files in the new image file, besides stitching several image files together (of which the image files fit next to each other as is) and resizing into a smaller size (so that it met the upper upload limit). Uploaded by me; stitched and resized by me, from the source files by the National Palace Museum.

(Original nomination)

Delist and replace as the one proposing it. -- Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Agreed, the new version is much better. The people and animals can now be seen clearly and there are no stitching errors that I can see.--Peulle (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Ermell (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per nomination ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Kruusamägi (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loojang 08.01.2017 - Sunset 08.01.2017 4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 17:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Estonia
Info created & uploaded by KristianPikner - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality. --A.Savin 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavily overprocessed.--Peulle (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is so great and I hate opposing it... But yes it hurts to see it fullsize. - Benh (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Really unnatural-looking sky. Could you possibly redevelop the photo from the raw? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the quality is far below FP level.--Peulle (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:20180105 Men's handball Austria - Czechia Pavel Horák 850 9028.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 17:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info Men's handball Austria Czechia 2018-01-05, picture shows Pavel Horák (CZE), Mykola Bilyk (AUT), Romas Kirveliavicius (AUT) created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Granada (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main man is not in focus. Charles (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I could wish for the man who's about to dunk (? that's what it looks like, a basketball player about to dunk the ball through the net; as a guy who grew up playing handball with Spaulding rubber balls against the wall, I find "team handball" weird and don't understand the rules) to be fully in focus, but of course a degree of motion blur is understandable. I could also wish for the defender Bilyk not to be cropped at the right foot. But all of these are minor points to me. The main point is that this photo is exciting! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for your comment on the cropping (btw: it's handball). It's a compromise between keeping the aspect ratio at 2:3 and not cutting off really important body parts. I tried to extract the czech forward only but then much of the excitement suffers from lastly not knowing how high he was jumping. The amount of excitement is the main reason why I nominated this and the main subject is not that much distracted from the spectators as in this other image: [1] --Granada (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's team handball, which I don't really recognize as a form of handball, but that's what they call it. We New Yorkers have a very different view of what handball is, as apparently do people in L.A. You can see an example here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sure if the defender adds context or distracts. I'd say distracts. And I think you go too far with your NR. - Benh (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK maybe not NR, but something with either it, or the sharpening renders oil painting a little, and I personally don't like it - Benh (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is what all my Nikon DSLRs render to moving facial skin at higher ISOs and 1/1000s of shutter speed and it's not further noise reduced in LR. This was the problem with the D3, the D4 and is with my D850 now. This is from the beginning of the second half where I still had the camera set to RAW (took the important images during the half-time interviews for TV) and the outcome after adding not too much NR. I personally prefer to keep the details in favour to NR, but my Nikons don't render details very well under the given circumstances. Shooting non-moving objects under the same circumstances works way better and I do really like that luma noise of the D850 (this is ISO 7200, not downsampled): File:20171028_OEHB_AUT-SRB_Patrekur_Jóhannesson_850_3154.jpg. --Granada (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Addendum: also Canon renders action this way: File:Pavel_Horak_01.jpg (the same player in 2010 :). --Granada (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nominationThis will never get enough votes. --Granada (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wernberg Damtschach Schloss Metallbank 06122016 5447.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 08:16:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like this is on sloped land, but even allowing for that it looks slightly tilted down and to the right to me. PumpkinSky talk 12:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @PumpkinSky: Thanks for your constructive comment. As a consequence of your hint I gave the bench a slight ccw spin. Hopefully I countermanded the previous inclination to the right by this move. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Much better. Excellent capture! I really like the rustic old-style of this and its lighting. PumpkinSky talk 14:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The image is too mediocre. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norderney, Weststrand -- 2016 -- 5285 -- 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2018 at 15:43:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to that there's a CA at least on the inner pole. But the image is excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The framing might be closer to the rule of thirds. Otherwise, a very evocative picture! -- Manudouz (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schön. Das quadratische Format gefällt mir. --Ralf Roleček 21:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky looks overexposed (burnt). Due to the long exposure, the waves are unsharp and the sea is burry. Also red CAs on the pillars. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Horizon tilted?--Peulle (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Basile Morin and Peulle: I've made minor improvements. The horizon is adjusted (the value is about -0.5 and -0.6 with Adobe LR. It's near to -0.6, so I adjusted with this value.), the waves should be blurry (you're right, Basile Morin, long exposure), it looks like minor CAs at the inner pole, but it's really minor. --XRay ^talk 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XRay, thanks for your notification. As I see your image with my eyes, there are three main problems : 1) the sky is burnt, 2) the sea is blurry and 3) nothing is sharp. So let's start with the first problem. The sky is burnt, that means if you reduce the exposure of your photo from your RAW file, and even if you reduce a lot, you'll certainly still have a big white area in the middle of these clouds, like a hole, which is there because the contrasts are too high, unfortunately. This is not a beautiful sky. A beautiful sky has nice shades and the intensity of the lights are soft and subtle. I'm sorry this sky here looks violent, despite of its soft tones, it's like broken because too contrasted. It's white white white white, and then a little bit of gray (+ pink). I don't find this aesthetical. Really too hard white. The second problem is the sea. As much I like your sea in this other version File:Norderney,_Weststrand_--_2016_--_5265_--_2.jpg shot at 1/30s, as much I can't see theses waves here without thinking that the subject is blurry, and a problem. In my opinion, a long exposure is nice when the subject is static, or when a special effect is expected, like for example in this waterfalls File:Seljalandsfoss,_Suðurland,_Islandia,_2014-08-16,_DD_201-203_HDR.JPG = okay, in that case, moving water can be a featured thing. But in this image, it gives the feeling that the camera moved and missed the target, sorry ! To finish, the third problem. There's no spot in this photo where the eyes can stop and breath. Because nothing is sharp. Only the 4 wooden pillars are slightly in focus, but they are so dark, so violently black, without texture, without depth, that they can't host us. Where can my eyes be hosted in this picture for more than 1 second ? Which part of that lanscape can I contemplate safely by catching the presented elements ? Nowhere, I'm afraid. Just a feeling, a mood ? There should be something real, I think, something physical, to make it interesting. Photography requires observation. If the potential observation is absent, like in this vague image, then we miss the whole. However, because my appreciation is negative, I have to say something positive. I've spent a long time observing your Featured Pictures, XRay, and find them rather excellent in general. Even this one File:Santorin_(GR),_Exomytis,_Vlychada_Beach_--_2017_--_2999_(bw).jpg quite similar is very good for me, and for good reasons. So it's a special failure here, a bit strange but that I try to explain with my subjectivity. Nevertheless, I respect your work for all the other creations, and wish you more success in your next shots -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your really long answer. It helps to understand your review. I can follow some of your arguments, but there are different opinions. We have to learn every day and I'll do this experiment, reading books and talking with other photographers. So your answer will help. For example the exposure time is a feature. It's long enough to show smooth water and to preserve the structure. I can agree with your contra, the different opinion. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The blurry sea's a feature, not a bug --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not in love with the sky which is boring. The processing is perhaps overdone with halos round the posts. I've made a crop suggestion. -- Colin (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your crop suggestion. IMO the resolution would be too small. I think I'll respect the ideas with my next visit at the sea. --XRay ^talk 17:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice that the pillars lead the eyes to the sun but not a fan of the square format, and blow out area in the sky (which don't look like "recoverable"). - Benh (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is too devoid of color for this to be a featurable sunset for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin (I do like the contrast between the steely, almost mono sea and bollards with the red-orange sun, though). Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Los Paredones, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 30-35 PAN.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 21:43:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Panoramic view of the archaeological site of Los Paredones, Nazca District, Ica Region, Peru. The adobe (mudbricks) site played an important administrative role between the coastal and the interior areas between 1471-1493 AD. All by me, Poc o² 21:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course this is quite impressive. The thing that gives me pause is that the background is so hazy, but this is a semi-arid area, isn't it? Is the sky almost always hazy there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: yes, that is a very arid area, actually a desert. I don't know, though, whether it usually looks like that. To me it isn't really disturbing (and that area secondary). Still, that's in fact something I can improve if required (second opinion?) Poc o² 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 14:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose left part "leaning" to the left, and overall boring composition. And still not a fan of the mid day harsh light. - Benh (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Poc o² 21:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paraje en Salinas de Medinaceli, Soria, España, 2017-05-23, DD 08.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 08:27:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Pine tree over a hill in Salinas de Medinaceli, Soria, Spain. Poc o² 08:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! But see note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped it as you suggested, Martin Poc o² 15:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite simple enough, with busy scrub. And technically not at FP -- possible camera shake? It isn't clear/sharp. -- Colin (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I applied some sharpening, Colin, Poc o² 15:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see very much improvement. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Applied a bit more, Colin, Poc o² 18:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I see the idea, I agree with Colin. And I would have chosen a different crop to highlight the fortunate diagonal and so that the tree appears a bit bigger. - Benh (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I think the problem here is that it tries to go for minimalism in two ways: 1) a contrast of shapes and colors between the hill and the sky; 2) a single tree against a relatively simple background. This is a great effort but unfortunately the those two features compete with each other, which detracts from the minimalism. The tree is a bit too small in the frame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, agree specially with KoH's last comment. I have a second nom in my assortment of this type, will try that out (scroll up :) ) Poc o² 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Air by Aristide Maillol, Jardins du Carrousel, Paris 7 October 2012.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 15:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Son of Groucho - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my view, too dark, back light does not work here. Sorry. HalfGig talk 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The statue is dark, but the statue's border is bright. That why this picture is beautiful IMO.--Paris 16 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I expect HalfGig's view to carry the day, but I find this picture beautiful and find that the sculpture is quite bright enough to view and is emphasized by the bright facade (I believe of the Louvre) in the background, in much the same way that a subito piano passage surrounded by louder music is emphasized in a special way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't help that the statue is sort of cut in half from the right shoulder to the left foot by the top of the hedge row. I'll have to think on this one. PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is too busy and IMO the main subject should be illuminated much better (e.g. using an off-camera flash). Here the background is brighter than the foreground which doesn't really work (as long as you don't have a contre-jour-composition which is not the case here). --Code (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caïn venant de tuer son frère Abel by Henri Vidal, Tuileries Garden, 18 July 2017.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 18:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info 'Cain after killing his brother Abel' by Henri Vidal. Created by Joe deSousa - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Humor in the composition alone gives this the "wow" factor, but focus appears crisp and color is vivid. Montanabw (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- a wonderful composition, technically well done. as it should be. --Sputniktilt (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per Montanabw. PumpkinSky talk 02:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Montana said it. --cart-Talk 09:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 23:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the photo, too, but please clean the dust spot to the right of the pigeon's head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thank Ikan Kekek!--Paris 16 (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Funny! --Ximonic (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ximonic -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:North window on rear of farmhouse at Kelvin A. Lewis farm in Creeds.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2018 at 21:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United_States
Someone suggested I nominate this at FPC, so here we go...North window on rear of farmhouse at Kelvin A. Lewis farm in Creeds. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contrastive but interesting motive compared to many a picture postcard photo with nice weather and beautiful sunsets. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really liking the breeze block on top of the roof. Also suggest using Photoshop clone tool to remove the plastic bottle litter. -- Colin (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Colin: I've uploaded a version without the plastic bottle. By "breeze block" I guess you mean the concrete block (cinder block) on the right? I'm having a lot of trouble getting the removal of that to look good. I'll keep trying. But in a way it kind of enhances the abanonded motif of this old farm house. PumpkinSky talk 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I didn't suggest trying to remove the block (other than physically). I'm fine with removing a bit of litter, which could blow away tomorrow, but not so keen on using Photoshop to alter the scene in bigger ways. Let's see what other people think; some might like it. I tried a crop where the block was cropped out, but wasn't sure. In the UK cinder blocks are breeze blocks. No idea why. -- Colin (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Since more opinions were requested....Focus, contrast, lighting are excellent. I went to the photo file page and saw this old farmhouse has its own category. It's clearly in a serious state of decay and not being maintained or lived in. It looks like PumpkinSky did some sort of full exterior documentation. As for the concrete block, you can tell it's been there a long time. We can see there is a worn sheet of plastic between it and the severely cracked paint. So in my view the concrete block belongs there and adds to the sense of decay and abandonement. HalfGig talk 21:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johann Jaritz and Albertus teolog: Would you like to comment about the concrete block? PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This block is entourage. It's located to hold the linoleum. As a temporary solution, it has survived intact for years. I like it. Albertus teolog (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Per HalfGig and Albertus teolog. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but the composition isn't doing much for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea of this but I think the image tries to take into much and thus outsmarts itself. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the soft pastel color scheme and all the textures, especially the effect of having a contrasting sharp window pane framed by all the soft states of decay. --cart-Talk 09:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per HalfGig. Composition of a decaying building is truly fascinating, the cinder block, to me, adds the needed interest, a random element illustrative of the overall state of the structure. The technical quality is fine, it's the almost-abstract sense of composition that puts this over the top for me. Montanabw (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#United_States

File:Oveja islandesa, Grábrók, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 097.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Icelandic sheep, Grábrók craters, Vesturland, Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 21:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when I visit here, I often see two active nom of yours. That's nice and that annoys me a bit. It feels "ok let's try and eventually some will pass". I think you should give more care before nominating. - Benh (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Benh, I understand that sentiment, but only to a certain point because I see the other side too...FPC is such a crap shoot that no one can accurately predict what will happen on all FPCs. Some photos are definite noms, some not, and then there are those in the gray area...none of us know what will happen on those and the results are often surprising. Look at the archive logs, probably about 75% of nominations fail. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PumpkinSky and Benh: I do indeed nominate those images that I believe that could became FPC, I agree with PumpinSky that there is a grey zone, and often other people have nominated pictures of mine where I saw no chance, but became FP. I am sorry if I believe that for tones of pictures, and there should actually be no problem with that. I do upload a lot and from everywhere and very different motifs, so sometimes I give a try to very different photographs. It is a fact that motifs that wow me don't wow other and the other way around. Poc o² 09:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Benh. --Ralf Roleček 00:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry but I don't really like the light or the sharpness of the sheep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find this exceptional, sorry. The sky is not pleasant and the sheep unsharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reluctantly so. There is just something odd here technically, the foreground is oversharp and the background is unfocused. I think the situation is that the entire image is a bit out of focus but the foreground looks artificially sharpened. It doesn't work. Montanabw (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 09:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:KB.Kościół św. Andrzeja w Trzebieszowicach.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 06:48:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Poconaco - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can you do something about the horizontal lines on the tree in the lower right corner? Also, just above the upper right side of the house to the left of the church, the sky has a crackly texture - is that natural or a product of something to do with the picture-taking or processing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice - I really like the light on the church roof. :) --Peulle (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scene nice enough to overlook some technical issues. There is posterisation in the sky just above the dark building on the left. Quite a lot of lens flare. I'm not sure what caused the horizontal lines on the tree (more visible if you brighten the image) -- perhaps pattern noise from the camera sensor? -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magical atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm going to interrupt the approval by acclaim. I don't think those horizontal lines are acceptable in an FP of a static scene. At the very least, I would want to see that problem rectified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long exposure shot and probably the shadows were lifted. I'd stay it's more likely to occur on static (edit: dark) scene actually. - Benh (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. But I don't think that makes it more acceptable. I think the viewer understands motion blur, but not this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressed by the sharpness of the building, and this cemetery under snow has something special -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be great though to get rid of those 2 lens flares (notes added) Poc o² 18:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support, and Happy New Year! Despite its technical imperfections (none of which would be problematic to correct), it still has a very Christmas-card feel despite the absences of any obvious (to me, anyway), Christmas motifs. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 18:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the picture very much. But there are many strange patterns and textures (as Ikan and Colin have mentioned + „waves“ around the reflector lamp and diagonal lines below the right streetlamp) and four lens flares (I've found two more). — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Nine steps stair in Lysekil - bw.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 22:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Architectural elements
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice textures. PumpkinSky talk 02:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this image grew on me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I didn't expect to get this composition, but when I enlarged it to fill my screen, I appreciated the well-chosen stairs and the composition you got from them. They vary nicely in texture and color (or in this case, shade of gray), and there are shapes on them that help the eyes. This is another photo that feels abstract, although it's at least in painting terms figurative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan, you made my point: Exploring new things can sometimes surprise you. :) --cart-Talk 11:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm not getting the other photo you nominated so far, though. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. You don't nominate something like that (or this) without being prepared for a lot of "Huh??? wtf?". ;) But trying out new things and maybe plant seeds to new ideas, is what I like to do from time to time. --cart-Talk 12:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice use of WB in my opinion. I would maybe have cut a bit of the large upper right grey part. - Benh (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I had placed the diagonal line at the bottom right to the upper left corner exactly in the corners.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Architectural elements

File:Gallotia gallito palmae La Palma.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 23:40:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Viajaste - uploaded by Viajaste - nominated by Viajaste -- Viajaste (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Viajaste (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but DOF is too shallow. It looks like the focus on the on foot, not the head or body. PumpkinSky talk 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The head is probably not sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness and unpleasant crop -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. BTW, please remove the Canary Islands category, this is over categorisation. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus is on the eye; however, DoF is by far insufficient. Photographing lizards is very difficult as almost no crop really works. This one doesn't either, sorry. --AWeith (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the eye is on about the same plane as the upper leg. PumpkinSky talk 21:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 technical issues outlined by the reviewers.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Kissingen Foyer Fresko 0417RM0539.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 14:27:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by me, user -- Ermell (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but if the fresco is the subject, why not zoom in a bit more? (Also, is that a purple CA line on the right side of the fresco?).--Peulle (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where would you want to crop? I lay down on my back to get the arches on the picture. Besides the fresco, I also found the different light colours and strengths interesting. DoneI actually didn`t notice the CA. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Image shows fresco in context on ceiling, so crop/zoom is fine for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Looking at history, I see the fresco has been selectively brightened. While I had assumed the lamps were lighting the fresco, it is now obvious to me that the brightness is fake -- the fresco obviously can't be brighter than the white walls around it (which the original upload demonstrates). I don't approve of this kind of alteration, which at the very least must be documented per FPC rules, but preferably just not done at all. While it is possible for the ceiling to be dull white, File:Foyer Regentenbau.jpg indicates that there is no shortage of light reaching these walls and ceiling, so I think Benh has a point (even though I think his comment about the histogram is irrelevant -- if the room was actually this dull, then that should be how it is rendered in the JPG and histogram be damned). So I think here we should see a global increase in exposure, while taking care with the lamps -- it is fine for the bulbs to blow because they are point-sources of light -- just try to keep as much detail in the lamps as you can. -- Colin (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin, I never look at a histogram before judging a picture but only to prove my points. Even if the room has dull lighting, your eyes adjust, as so shall a camera when recording a photo. Otherwise, good bye nights shots and starry skies... - Benh (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Benh, while one's eyes do adjust there is a limit. Today the weather here has been dull with some heavy rain at times. I needed to put on the lights in my living room so I could comfortably read even at midday. I would not need to do that if it was sunny. So my eyes today saw a the dull grey walls of my living room and the book I was reading, even though both of them are close to "white". I don't believe a photo of my living room today should be as bright as a photo of my living room on a sunny day. -- Colin (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I do agree. But I need to put on sunglasses too when I go skiing. That doesn't mean the whites will be washed out on my pictures. The brain also does some adjustment. And hence the white balance too by the way. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although the overall scene has now been brightened, it still appears that the artwork is selectively brightened and more luminous than the white ceiling. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the generous crop, which gives a really good rhythm to the eyes. But Ermell, please add more information about the fresco. I don't think this should be an FP until we know who the painter is and when it was painted. A title, if any, would be nice, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Sorry I thought the category would be sufficient but now I think it's better.--Ermell (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a very nice ceiling, but I personally cannot let the underexposure pass (and this is no artistic choice). Picture with that many whites don't show histograms with a peak in the middle, and the fresco is really dark. - Benh (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I increased the brightness a bit. Does any one else think that the picture was too dark before?--Ermell (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks but I'm leaving my oppose for now. Still think it's slightly under. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose due to the blown areas on the chandeliers. If different exposures had been combined, this might not have happened. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Case I don't think it is reasonable to expect point-sources of light to not be blown. This is a photo of the ceiling and artwork, not the chandeliers. Actually, the image was fairly well exposed for the chandeliers, but has become worse in the latest version with brightness increased -- quite a bit of detail in the glass has gone. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I perhaps should have added that the chandeliers looking all frosted, as if they had washed and left out to dry during the cold snap we are currently having in the Northeast/Midwest US, seemed to be a result of the selective brightening you uncovered. But the greater point to me—and I think to you as well—is that it was avoidable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This has been improved, but I'm still not quite at supporting. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see the point that Daniel Case is making, but for me the good qualities of the image outweigh that one minor issue. I especially like the composition. --Pine^✉ 05:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Colin: @Daniel Case: @Benh: Here is in my opinion the most correct version of this photo. The yellow light is inside and the blue light outside. The fresco should not be brightened up as Colin has already mentioned because the viewer sees it like this in reality. I also reduced the highlights of the light bulbs a bit, although I don't find it too annoying.--Ermell (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, you lost contrast and I think if the painting is there, it's because one should look at it. It's a bit sad if it's dark on the photo, and I didn't think the whole picture would be so hard to expose correctly. Anyways, I guess it's hard to satisfy everyone ;) - Benh (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Bruderwald-Herbst-026375.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 07:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Charles (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 14:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sputniktilt (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 23:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ausgezeichnet! PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support "... like the light in the forest" Seems just waiting to be memed with a Bible verse ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You mention memes a lot. I don't think a photo has to be great to be used in a meme; do you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, we all have different ways of viewing and relating to pictures. I often use artsy-fartsy language with metaphors and parables, you like to mention how your father taught you how to look at art and Daniel likes songs and memes. We use whatever tools are available and comfortable when we try to express our emotional perception of photos. --cart-Talk 08:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair statement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: And to answer your question, no, a photo doesn't have to be great to be used in a meme. But I think it helps a lot. People are more likely to find a memetic use for a great photo than an ordinary one, I think, and this one looks exactly like the sort of of image religious people would find appealing as a backdrop for a Bible verse (probably because we all think "God's projections" when we see misty crepuscular rays, and start hearing some celestial choir going "aaaaaaahhhhh" when we see them). Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mega wow factor, tech well done. Montanabw (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië) 15.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 06:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info For me, the lines on the left are fascinating with respect to the rock on the right. Walking around Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in the Parco nazionale dello Stelvio (Italy). created by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like several things about this photo, including the glittering ripples. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But why crop the trees? Charles (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: This was in my opinion the best crop. because there are too many disturbing elements were nearby.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 02:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support −-cart-Talk 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Ypsilon bru rosa (3).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 17:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Norway
Info Created and nominated by Peulle. The Ypsilon pedestrian bridge in Drammen, Norway was opened in 2008 and has since won several awards for its innovative design. The 47 metres tall cable-stayed bridge is made of a steel construction with 16 cables holding the three spans (90m + 56m) in a "Y"-shape. In October 2017, the bridge was illuminated as part of the Breast Cancer Awareness campaign. (The purpleness is caused partly by the fact that the light shines in spots, only to disappear into shadows, gradually darkening the pink colour, and partly by somewhat poor light setup by the council).
Support -- Peulle (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A better composition than Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ypsilon bru rosa (1).jpg but agree the lighting isn't optimal with the bridge rather dark in places. Also the sky is very dark .. brown light pollution colour rather than e.g. blue hour which makes for more interesting/appealing night photos. Possibly an HDR technique would handle the light better. These purple LED lamps are a pain, as they easily blow the camera sensor and hard to render colour being so monochromatic. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. I would also try blue hour. (In case some don't know: The Photographer's Ephemeris is helpful for planification) - Benh (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blue hour is generally going to be better than night for most things, but for large, well-lit buildings a nighttime picture is still perfectly featureable. But it is not the case here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like this composition, and I think the picture is good enough to feature. It doesn't look like my view will carry the day, though, so try a similar composition somewhat earlier at night or in the twilight before dawn. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think there's a chance of that; the bridge probably won't be illuminated this way again - at least it was stated at the time to be a one-time event.--Peulle (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Image is too dark, with image composition bland and unbalanced. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better than the other one, but I still think this one is better. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me the lighting and form are interesting as they are. I like Daniel Case's idea and would suggest nominating this one, perhaps after this nomination fails out. --Pine^✉ 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support like the former one. --Milseburg (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Tschiertschen (1350 meter) via Ruchtobel richting Ochsenalp 09.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 06:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Switserland
Info A hostile mountain world under the dark rain clouds. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me to be properly moved by an image like this one, I'd need the colour version, I think.--Peulle (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this could work very well as a black & white image, possibly better than any color version could, but I don't like the editing. The sky is mostly fine for my taste, but I think the snow is way too dark. The same goes for the trees, maybe rising the green channel a bit during conversion could help with that. BTW: The histogram looks strange, copped up in many little peaks … --El Grafo (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Athyma nefte from Nagaland.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 17:17:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Chinmayisk - uploaded by Chinmayisk - nominated by Chinmayisk -- Chinmayisk (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good sharpness on the creature, and pleasant colors. --Pine^✉ 04:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly out of focus Chrumps (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chrumps. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beautiful colors, well composed, but Chrumps' critic is well-funded. Sorry. --Sputniktilt (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rose, Sheila's Perfume, バラ, シーラズパヒューム, (14525862372).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 18:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info created by T.Kiya - uploaded by Tm - nominated by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are other ways of photographing a flower than sticking it in the centre of the frame with leaves all around. And one doesn't have to have the flower sharp from front to back with fancy focus stacking. Here we have an good quality specimen flower with the focus on the centre of the petals. There's enough in focus to see the veins on the petals but enough sharpness variation that it looks 3D and gentle rather than the sort of technical computer-generated image one gets from focus stacking. This rose also has rather nice colour variation. Technically the red channel is blown (in the white areas, not the red/orange areas, and this issue is not uncommon in flower photos) but having fine colour detail over every part of the flower isn't the point of this photo. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yup (although the crop might be tight) - Benh (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I see Colin's point and to some extent agree with it, this is going too far in the other direction, IMO. Almost nothing is sharp.--Peulle (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Peulle, I'll repeat the point I made at this nomination. This image here is an artistic presentation, while that photo was a specimen presentation. In the former, I think technical issues are less important and in the latter technical issues need to be close to perfect. Both need high quality specimens, unless "ugly" or "decay" is your subject. In the former, there needs to be something creative that appeals to the eye (such as tight crop, shallow focus, angle-of-view) while the latter is often photographically sterile and the only beauty comes from nature. -- Colin (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a problem understanding your point of view. I just don't agree with it.--Peulle (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DOF is too thin here, at least the center bit should be sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We differ. I don't love this composition, regardless of questions of sharpness and DoF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background, strange crop, and agree with the 3 previous opponents -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Mile (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I see Colin's point, the softer focus would have been more effective on the edges of the flower. That large blurred petal close to the center is discordant. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:South African ostrich in The Kiev Zoo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2018 at 07:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very good - seems to be the best ostrich headshot in the category, which should also count for something.--Peulle (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question What happened in the upper right corner? The background is "dotted" while in the rest of the picture it is not. --Llez (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the corner was the darkest part and under processing (lighten up) the grain become more noticeable. But I decided not to blur.--Ввласенко (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Well it's distracting. I'm sorry, but I have to consider the photo not outstanding because of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and

Question I listened to the remarks, reduced the graininess in the dark corner and uploaded a new version of the image to Wikimedia Commons. But how do I change the version on this page? Do I need to re-upload the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates? --Ввласенко (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By uploading a new version of the image it automatically becomes the actual version, i.e. you don't need to change anything here. What you see is the most recent version you created. --AWeith (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Ввласенко (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've purged my cache and top right area still has problem noise. Charles (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--AWeith (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might be a little noisy in the feathers on the head but the world-weary expression is eminently memeable. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good for me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, eye in the shadow is pretty much a no-go for me. --El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linnutee - Milky Way (9) copy.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2018 at 12:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created and uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kristian Pikner] (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kristian Pikner (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm really bothered by the long star trails. Unless they're actually meteors, can they please be removed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quit sure they are airplanes (especially as one of the air traffic corridors crosses that part of Western Estonia) and in my oppinion they add to the image and should not be removed. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of that possibility. I'll have another look at the photo now that I know this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the trails thus explained, I Support the photo. I'm OK with the haze, too - the composition works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 04:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like astrophoto shots, but this one falls a bit short composition-wise and is also a bit dark. I'm a bit annoyed that the galactic center (the brightest part) lies behind the haze (or whatever kind of pollution) because it's so close to the horizon. But I guess this is about as much one can get in Estonia in August. - Benh (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Although the haze detracts a bit, I like that we can see the green tinge of an aurora. Can someone explain what the two bright spots are on the horizon? I think that they could be the sun and the moon, although when I look at them I am uncertain. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the location and the direction of the view the one in the right might be Kuressaare (biggest town in Saaremaa island; the nearbly small glows might be from villages in the southern coast of Saaremaa). This light in the left might be from a ferry. The glow above that might be from Ruhnu island. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the colors of the sky, from light blue to green, to orange, and to pink. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love this. Estonia must be wonderful at night. Is the green color to the right the remainder of an aurora? Should the trails still be an issue, please leave them in; they contribute to the mysterious scenery just like the two light sources at the horizon. --AWeith (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing image and illustrates astrophotographer's skill in dealing with light pollution and yet creating a sharp, brilliant image. Montanabw (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:New York Botanical Garden October 2016 010.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 05:11:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty and really works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful light, good composition,... that works for me, too. --Sputniktilt (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 13:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and 7... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support In the hiking guidebook I wrote on New York City-area day hikes, I included a short one at the Botanical Garden since you can get there pretty easily by mass transit and you have the chance to see the ~~only~~ largest remaining stand of virgin forest in the city. And you can walk along this section of the Bronx River, the only freshwater river within New York City limits. This is a perfect illustration of this small idea of wildness within New York City that the Botanical Garden preserves. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with your spirit, but by no means is it the only part of New York City with first-growth forest. For example, Inwood Park has virgin forest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:20171121 Don Det Laos 3754 DxO.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 16:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me -- -- Jakubhal 16:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 16:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 18:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is okay, unfortunately this photo was shot in the late afternoon with the sun just in front. The File History of the picture shows how the first version was terribly dark before a strong processing https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/6a/20180107090531%2120171121_Don_Det_Laos_3754_DxO.jpg This is not yet a QI, and if the shadows of the buildings have been artificially recovered in the post-treatment, this river bank is definitely in the back light. Look at the difference with the same houses shot in the morning, when the sun is behind File:Houses_and_guesthouses_on_the_bank_of_Don_Det.jpg Further thoughts : geocoding could be added and categorization improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Basile Morin, it looks like this FPC and your photo are the exact same spot?? PumpkinSky talk 03:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I live on this (beautiful and small) island. This picture was shot last January and I've just uploaded it this morning -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Same spot but very different angles. Let me think on this some. PumpkinSky talk 04:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky: Look at the map from the GPS coordinates showing the spot and the bridge, to get an idea about where was the sun at the end of the day-- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With apologies, I'm rescinding my support vote. I much prefer the original composition with the additional bushes, which is much more resolved to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that, too -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination The sun was not "just in front", but rather on front-left (~40-50° anticlockwise). First version is darker that it should be, another too bright. Both due to postprocessing. I don't like the bushes, but I restore it in another version. But I have no time now. I will upload another version in the evening. Overall I do not like that picture that much and I hesitated to submit it as FPC. I withdraw -- Jakubhal 06:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Jakubhal, do you mean you made the first version even darker than it originally was ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've made such mistake. Mostly because I focused too much on the look of the sky. The original was a little brighter and current version is close to the original. -- Jakubhal 18:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jakubhal 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Rakaposhi peak, 7,788 mt, from Tagaphari basecamp.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 10:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Franawaits -- Franawaits (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Franawaits (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this photo is well below the required minimum size of 2 megapixels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment Hi new user! The above comment means that if you upload the original hi-rez version of the photo on the files page (look near the bottom of the page where it says "Upload a new version of this file") we can go ahead with this nomination. It would also help if you added the EXIF for the photo. --cart-Talk 11:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Churches of Mahone Bay, NS.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 15:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Shawn M. Kent - uploaded by Shawn M. Kent - nominated by Shawn M. Kent -- Shawn M. Kent (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shawn M. Kent (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overprocessed, doesn't look real. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is nice in its own right so you really don't need all that overprocessing and saturation. Please dial it down. --cart-Talk 15:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mega over-processing - check the skyline. Charles (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the above, this is a great scene but saturation is too high. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Ikan, sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think you have good raw material and that you take the photos at the right time, but you only go a bit overboard with the processing - Benh (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 overprocessing noted

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) 16:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Children playing at sunset on a Mekong bank in Si Phan Don.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 05:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- composition delightful, captures mood and sense of place brilliantly. Montanabw (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but a bit dark and could also use some NR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noise reduction applied is 10%, on a photo shot at iso 320. Please also consider it's a 28 Mpix photo (6510x4340). Exposure is correct, at 17:08 pm in Laos, and has to be compared to other sunsets Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The interesting parts are in the shade making up for lack of contrast and "pop", but yes it's a really nice composition in my view... and it's hard to oppose Laos ;). - Benh (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Doesn't quite hold together compositionally, but the mood is well-captured enough to offset that per Montana. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. Beautiful scene. could have been sharper. and less noise.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak support there are a few little things I wish were a bit different, as other people have noted, but it's a very nice scene. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Laos

File:An adult and a juvenile white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) fighting.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 12:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info When several white-tailed eagles use to go hunting on the same clearing it often comes to some wild-looking tussle. Usually they attack each other with their talons rather than the beaks leading to a very short but intense dispute. However, sometimes things may become worse with loads of feathers flying. Created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AWeith (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great shot, not completely the same as the other shot in the series, and each has its own magic.--Peulle (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle PumpkinSky talk 15:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 15:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eagle Fight II - the sequel; as good as the first one. --cart-Talk 15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But don't make those eagles the new "FPC ceilings" please ;-) (you can have heaps of them if you took bursts of the scene) - Benh (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have no fear, Benh, I am sure you will stop me nominating too many of them ;-). However, if you spent these really exhausting days in a minute and f...ng uncomfortable shelter, watching these scenes which are so fascinating and beyond retrieval; you would certainly also want to share the images with those who might enjoy them just as oneself does. I will respect your notice when any more eagles shall push off. But more specifically: your well educated eye will certainly have noticed that in eagle fight II one contestant is different (The old bloke being attacked by two different youngsters)... Two photos of two different bursts :o). Cheers, --AWeith (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure each image is distinctly different from the other and you'll be fine. :)--Peulle (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful shot, just the right moment --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. How close were you to the eagles? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My estimate is 20-25m. The clearing where the eagles resided was approx. 50m wide; so distances were bewteen 20 and 70m. I took either the 400mm f2.8 lens or used the additional 2x converter. I was in a very old very small shack, which was accepted by the birds as part of their habitat. They completely ignored the presence of my lens moving to and fro and the noises the camera shutter made. Funny thing: there were always several ravens first on the clearing; without them showing up the eagles wouldn't come down at all. --AWeith (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent ǃ -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically average but great action shot. Please add note to identify juvenile. Charles (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note added, thanks for the hint. What could I have done to increase technical quality,Charles?--AWeith (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure there's much you could have done. The camera setttings look spot on, but the light wasn't perfect. I'd have been very happy with it. Much better than my recent eagle efforts of mating and dining which are valuable captures, but nowhere near FP. Charles (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better than the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes

File:Barrio Pocitos Panorama Playa.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 20:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by Fedaro -- Fedaro (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fedaro (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice motif, but very gray, and a lot of it also feels blown out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry not sharp and detailed enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horizon appears tilted. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jefferson Memorial Washington April 2017 002.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2018 at 22:13:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is something special about the light in this. --cart-Talk 09:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cart's right! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another late afternoon sun; i.e. for me there is no particular wow regarding the light, I'm really sorry. Also, there is too much of a sky for me. Suggestion for improvement: 16:9 crop? --AWeith (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I also think that less air is nicer.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me, the sky and interesting light make the image for me. Not just another postcard of the Memorial, but a full sense of place. Keep the sky. Montanabw (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Per Agnes --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aweith. - Benh (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support; while it's nice to show that the memorial can look beautiful when the sky is not blue and the trees around it are not green, I agree that we do not need as much sky. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Per Agnes.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Larus michahellis juvenile in flight, Sète04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2018 at 18:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Likely not the bigger and sharper bird image we have, but it is somewhat special IMO. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 19:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that the processing needed as a result of the very high ISO retains enough detail. Charles (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Charles, not sharp enough for a 3.5 MP image, even of wildlife. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - For me, the beauty of the lines and shapes of this bird in flight make the photo outstanding, and that's much more important to me than a lack of sharpness or small size in this instance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love this BIF photo because of the head/wing position and especially the lighting. However; the crop didn't leave that much of the 37Mpix of the D810. The high ISO is an unfortunate circumstance, too. That inevitably leads to insufficient sharpness and to a not crispy enough image. So sad, I'm sorry... --AWeith (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. The photo is quite good, but overall doesn't work for me. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a great catch, but it really falls short on the sharpness given its size and I know first hands (not me but user:sanchezn caught many great birds shots in front of me) these are not so hard to get, especially when one lives not too far from seaside and has about unlimited possibilities to retry. - Benh (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Just not sharp enough. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for me, excellent composition -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough for me, very good wildlife image --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not very sharp, low resolution and a little bit of noise. But a nice shot and beautiful lighting -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes

File:Farmhouse at Kelvin A. Lewis farm in Creeds 13.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 00:08:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United_States
Abandoned farmhouse in Creeds, Virginia. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 00:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC) I guess I should mention that two people commented very postively on this photo prior to its FPC nomination, Tournasol7 and Johann Jaritz. PumpkinSky talk 12:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Pleasant lighting, I like the golden reflection of the sunset on the windows and the composition seems more interesting than in other images of this building because there is enough space for the bushes on both sides. However, the moved branches and leaves result a bit disturbing to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the light which makes it look as if the house is occupied, but exposure time too long resulting in moving twigs. Have you got another one? Charles (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: Not one with this exact lighting and angle. There are at least 16 total shots of the main house, see Category:Kelvin A. Lewis Farmstead in Creeds. PumpkinSky talk 12:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's a shame, but 1/2 sec F11 ISO 64 not the best settings... It's still a great composition though. Charles (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the reflected sunset light on the door - Benh (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 02:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for info there is dust spot left of the right chimney Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Christian Ferrer. It was faint but I think I got the one you were talking about. PumpkinSky talk 13:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Third time's the charm. Looks almost like it could be the cover illustration for a horror novel. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Daniel, I had to chuckle at that. Yea, there are 16 shots of the whole house to choose from and I had a lot of trouble deciding which one was most likely to successful at FPC. I narrowed it down to three, and of course, me being me, the one I put in "3rd place" ended up being the one that has done the best. Thanks for the chuckle, support, and horror novel comment! PumpkinSky talk 21:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it, old houses is my favorite subject, light and condition are excellent --The Photographer 01:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual light, brings out the character of the structure. Light on the door is stunning. Montanabw (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Great picture. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#United_States

File:Fireworks on New Year's Eve in a small Swabian village (1).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 09:20:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info Despite all warnings on fine particulate matter it is still use in Germany to celebrate the onset of the new year with fireworks on New Year's Eve, even in villages as small as the Swabian village Eberhardzell. Created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AWeith (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC) I like the alt better. PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Now I also know the English term for Feinstaub... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Martin Falbisoner: Wir alle lernen von einander. Beide Fotografie und Sprache. PumpkinSky talk 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - I wish you had gotten the top of the highest fireworks, but this is quite a good picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC). Vote crossed out so as to favor the alt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is really an amazing shot to get the burst and the ground show. I've had so many "fireworks fails" I can most certainly appreciate the work that went into getting this shot. Nicely done! Montanabw (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Montana. --cart-Talk 22:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Big wow for me... just that the messy explosions in the middle ruin the overall composition a little :( - Benh (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Benh, I appreciate your comment. It is, however, somewhat difficult to catch the right time window for a 150sec exposure during an event that lasts some 15 mins. I do indeed have images without the guy in front spitting fire like a medieval dragon; however, all others have also been less intense then and the scenario became somewhat boring. --AWeith (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for explaining. I understand the challenge (hence the neutral and not oppose). To share to those interested, as far as I know (and remember) catching this is done with very long exposures (as u said) and by leaving something in front of the lens when an explosion is not desired, and removing it to get a desired pattern/explosion/light on the frame. So the mess in the middle could theoretically avoided but would require great skills and anticipation :) - Benh (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a lovely image, but I object to the processing. The brightest parts of the fireworks are clearly blown out, and there's no need to be ashamed of that - much better to have it be a natural #FFFFFF than the ugly grey #C1C1C1 it is now. Will reconsider if a reprocessed version is submitted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear King of: thank you for your comment; you might be right. I do - however - not know whether this is the right moment to upload another version, as there are so many positive votes to date. I guess I can upload a brightened alternative to the nominee just here and let all of you judge. I hesitated to increase the white too much as that would negatively interfere withe the darkness of the moon-lit sky. --AWeith (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the alternative - Benh (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, if that means you like the alternative and would support it, you have do so with a vote and not just with the above comment. Please clarify. --cart-Talk 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving a better "vote" on the alt to favor it. "No vote = Neutral" and "Neutral > oppose" therefore "No vote > oppose". Not supporting it for the reasons I already mentioned though. - Benh (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, much appreciated. --cart-Talk 20:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt edit

Info This alternative version has brightened white areas to meet KoH's comments. See what you mean,@PumpkinSky: ,@Martin Falbisoner: ,@Peulle: ,@Ikan Kekek: ,@Montanabw: ,@W.carter: ,@Basile Morin: ,@Agnes Monkelbaan: ,@Benh: ,@Johann Jaritz: ,@Uoaei1: . --AWeith (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks better --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --cart-Talk 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that one ghost on the street. This version looks better at thumb size as well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version too -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this alt PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Germany

The chosen alternative is: File:Fireworks on New Year's Eve in a small Swabian village (1), brightened.jpg

File:Flooded Albizia Saman (rain tree) in the Mekong.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 05:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created & uploaded by User:Basile Morin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this a compelling image, a striking portrait of a tree in a river. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Dominicus Johannes. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Ikan, for the nomination ǃ -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 09:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. PumpkinSky talk 13:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AWeith (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. Charles (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support gnam gnam ;) - Benh (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cold Season (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Pugilist (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Paddyfield pipit (Anthus rufulus rufulus).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 09:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--AWeith (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just perfect. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not 100% sharp, but per w:Paddyfield pipit, the bird is 15 cm long, so this photo at full size is larger than life, a notable achievement. Excellent composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition and detail on a small bird. Montanabw (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 22:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Indeed beautiful, but even at the 2 MP minimum resolution there are clearly artefacts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm, I think the artifacts you see are largely a result of the Commons resizing algorithm - if I download the image and resize in IrfanView, it looks a lot better! --Alandmanson (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose KoH has a valid point. --A.Savin 00:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alandmanson (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Leyland Cypress NBG.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 11:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Cupressaceae
Cupressus × leylandii, Leyland Cypress, 'Gold Rider', at the Norfolk Botanical Garden, Norfolk, Virginia. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 11:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am really fond of this composition. Well done, Pumpkin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Danke sehr, Johann, Frieden und Freude durch die Fotografie. PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment Donec eris felix, multos numerabis amicos. Tempora si fuerint nubila, solus eris. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hope this doesn't sound too harsh (not intended to) but the framing is too tight, the light is not more than average and the composition is very busy. And then there is this strange part of a plant in the lower right corner. Nothing featurable in my eyes. --Code (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on a similar wavelength to Code. Busy compositions can be great, but these elements don't add up to something great for me (rather more random-feeling), and if you want the cypress to stand out, this isn't really making that happen, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Clearly not making it. 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:20170624 Schneeberglandrallye DSC 7444.jpg, kept edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 15:31:16

Info I don't want this image to be featured just because it accidentally could be shot under near perfect conditions. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Granada (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but not quite sure I get ur reason for delisting it. - Benh (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realize Granada took this photo and nominated it, but this photo is FP worthy and I feel we should only delist for serious techinical issues, copyright violations, and if a better photo of the same scene comes along. HalfGig talk 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serendipity and coincidence are largely responsible for so many great, famous photos. I don't understand your thinking at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is happening that causes someone to take and upload a photo, nominate it for featured status and gets it, and a few weeks later nominate it for delisting? Huh? -- KTC (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. And Cart's suggestion to change the crop of this composition due to the distracting feet in the background helped improving it, then I don't think the conditions were perfect at the beginning. Nice adjustment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI everyone, Granada has removed the FP tag and categories from this photo herself on 04 Jan, see here. PumpkinSky talk 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a person can do that unilaterally, even if it's their own picture. And how do we know that Granada's account hasn't been somehow hacked or misused for a prank while unprotected? This is very strange behavior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was me in person, my account is not compromised at all. Not wanting to see this image anymore on pages together with other featured sports pictures is the consequence of the frustration gained by being unable to take good pictures under not perfect conditions. --Granada (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry about your frustration, but don't take it out on a photo that we voted to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All good photographers need a lot of luck in their tool bag, it is part of the trade. If all of us nominating photos here removed photos every time we got frustrated over not getting a good shot, there would be very, very few photos in the FP category. . --cart-Talk 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 You took an awesome picture, that's all that matters. Be proud of it, it deserves the "star"! --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Also removed from the featured pictures page Sports. I've reverted both edits -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delist. --cart-Talk 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 9 keep, 0 neutral => /not delisted. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adonis blue (Polyommatus bellargus) male underside 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 12:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 14:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sputniktilt (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite an excellent picture, overall. At first, I thought the butterfly might not be up to your usual standards of sharpness, but per w:Adonis blue, its wingspan is only 3 cm, so at full size, your picture is quite a bit larger than life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AWeith (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Just went through my Lepidopteran images. How do I distinguish a P. icarus female from the one depicted here? I cannot find a difference ... --AWeith (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very easy. P.icarus does not have the diagnostic black lines across the white fringes of the wings. Charles (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Sharpness is a bit short for a FP in my opinion. See the difference with this recently promoted File:Papilio_machaon_maiting.jpg for example, where the context is also more valuable -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah! a little revenge vote for my oppose on the laughing girl... Charles (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info No, it's just too blurry unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Grey clouds over the luminous paddy fields in Don Det.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 09:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Landscape from 2015 ~~direct from the camera without post-treatment~~ (not anymore) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mix of dark clouds, colours and lighting. Interesting composition! Some further thoughts: I would remove the two spots (birds?) in the sky and there might be some red CA on the right building. Maybe I would crop the lower corner a bit so that the diagonal path ends in the lower left corner of the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done CAs corrected ̟and birds deleted. I keep the actual format for now, above all because I like the traditional ratio of 3/2 in photo, but your idea is interesting. Thanks ǃ -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's only a personal thought about the image. It already deserves to become an FP as is. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like this almost-sun shower - the light on the paddy and the dark clouds in the sky. And based on my experience in Malaysia, when the sky looks like this, you'd better run inside before the rains come! Maybe it's not like that in Laos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same here. And your camera needs a good waterproof bag ː-) Basile Morin (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 10:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely and moody. Somehow I wish you used a longer focal length (as in a few of your recent nominations) because I think a bigger villager here would improve composition and that this much field is a bit wasted, but this is personal taste of course. Really (really) beautiful light. - Benh (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A crop from this photo looks great (in small size), then I think you're right concerning the focal length. But this will be for the next shots, maybe, with another lens and captor. Thank you, Benh ǃ -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Really not that sharp for the resolution, but very impressive atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 01:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others: awesome light! --El Grafo (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic. Shows the way farming is always in some way at the mercy of nature. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too really like the light, the palm tree shaken by the wind, and the beauty of the rural scene. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 15:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Laos

File:Köttmannsdorf Unterschlossberg Drau Strassenbruecke B91 Loiblpass Straße 09102017 1427.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 09:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As seen on QIC. Symmetry, lines, reflection, colours! --Basotxerri (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the symmetry is destroyed by the foreground. A different crop? Charles (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful to me. I might crop in front of the nearest plants, perhaps, but the crop is fine for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jeepers! --cart-Talk 10:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly stunning in all regards. PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support W — wonderful. --A.Savin 13:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent - I could see this on the front page. --Peulle (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Charles actually, but maybe the crop would break it... - Benh (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color, good composition, great "wow" factor. Montanabw (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of the ones that makes you stop scrolling through the nominations. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Two French bulldogs swimming in life jackets.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 10:33:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 10:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 10:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fun picture, a little strange for me because I've seen dogs swim many times but have never seen one in a life jacket. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This breed needs to have it because of their constitution. They really like being in the water and cooling off on hot days, so owners have to make sure they don't drown accidentally. In Sweden, most boat owners also put life jackets on their dogs because it is easier to hoist them onboard again if the dog decides to jump in the water for a swim. --cart-Talk 11:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. PumpkinSky talk 12:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice image that tells a story. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine photo and cute! HalfGig talk 17:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice composition, humorous picture and educative too. But the black dog seems a bit blurry and the dark color of the water doesn't help to distinguish it well -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The black dog was completely wet since it splashed around as opposed to the calmer brown dog. I can't do anything about that or change its color, sorry. --cart-Talk 06:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support anyway (the more I look at it, the more I like) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the expression on the little dog's face. I love the leash from the left. "Honey, would you take the dog out for a swim?" Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That little bay is very popular with dog owners since it is wide, shallow and relatively sheltered. If you are there with a camera at almost any time of the day you are sure to get happy dog photos. The brown dog was an enthusiastic swimmer and would probably have ended up on the other side of the fjord if it hadn't been on a leash. The black one just stayed close to the larger one. --cart-Talk 22:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)

File:Young Girl in Plaza - Guanajuato - Mexico (38435617064).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 05:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Adam63 - uploaded by Adam63 - nominated by User:Adam63 -- adamjones.freeservers.com (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- adamjones.freeservers.com (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not use your signature to promote your website per COM:UPOLICY. --cart-Talk 06:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personality rights please. We should not be promoting unathorised pictures of children. Charles (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whether this image should be here is a question in itself; I'd really like to have it confirmed that the girl has given consent to having her portrait posted on Commons. My vote, however, stems from the fact that the image quality is below QI standard, let alone making it an FP.--Peulle (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low image quality, and that's before we even get into the consent issues. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think it's time to FPX this photo, for the policy reasons mentioned above. Do you agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition, light, and colors are good, but sharpness is not OK. Yann (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Gimillan (1805m.) naar Colle Tsa Sètse in Cogne Valley (Italië). Zicht op de omringende alpentoppen van Gran Paradiso 09.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 17:25:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info Mountain hike of Gimillan (1805m.) At Colle Tsa Sètse Cogne Valley (Italy). View of the surrounding Alpine peaks of Gran Paradiso. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stunning! PumpkinSky talk 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Very nice, only wish there were more ground and less sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment. We were above a depth and photographed to the other side of the valley. There was only ground below us.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but for me the composition is too far away from the rule of thirds --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An unusually good nominee, IMO. I love the long diagonal on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because of the unfortunate foreground and overall "bland" composition - Benh (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the dynamics of the clouds all over the mountains. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 02:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Italy

File:Roermond, de Natalinitoren en de Sint-Christoffelkathedraal RM32552 vanaf de brug over de Maas foto6 2017-05-10 18.27.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 21:31:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Netherlands
Info Roermond, the Natalinitower and the cathedrale. All by -- Michielverbeek (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really fine, clean composition, IMO, with the wonderful bonus of the boaters, which really helps. Crop is arguably tight on the right side, depending on what you're looking at, but I'm OK with it in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge ruins it for me. A viewpoint from the field/lawn next to the bridge would be much better, I guess. This would avoid the bridge (or maybe allow to show it in total), and the two towers would not be that close. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really seeing anything cool or wow'y here - the light is a bit unfavourable.--Peulle (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is ok for me. The view from the field would be more simple and boring I guess. --Milseburg (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Two birds tied together may have four wings, yet they cannot fly". The walkway and bridge, while striking in their own right, unfortunately detract from the equally interesting buildings to their left. The eight-shell in the river is a more cooperative complement to them. Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steindorf am Ossiacher See Tiffen Pfarrkirche und ehem Pfarrhof 20042016 1623.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 15:06:40 (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) 15:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- Truly enchanting. I love the way the driveway has two parts that lead you in and then the photo lines merge into a single vanishing point just behind the church where the clouds are. The photo is tack sharp, brightly colorful, well-light, and the main church is on the left rule of thirds line. Great capture. PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much per PumpkinSky HalfGig talk 17:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very nice, but could you sharpen the steeple a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Ikan Kekek: I tried to improve the steeple’s sharpness. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is sharp enough now, and I like the composition as PumpkinSky does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I like the composition and how the eye is drawn to the church, the color is brilliant and the wide angle lens distortion is artsy, not distracting. Montanabw (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Münster, Torminbrücke -- 2018 -- 0446.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 06:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too black. A tighter crop (see note) might work --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, agree with Martin. Too dark overall. Nette neue Kamera hast Du aber! Und um das Objektiv beneide ich Dich ebenfalls. --Code (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Endlich Vollformat. Ich bin noch in der Kennenlernphase - und trotzdem muss die Kamera in Kürze schon zum Service. Danach dürfte es dann richtig losgehen. :-) --XRay ^talk 08:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. But try Martin's crop if you like. I'd like to see the results and have a chance to vote on them. Your choice, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dunkel. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. It will help to take better photographs. --XRay ^talk 17:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mailbox at farmhouse at Kelvin A. Lewis farm in Creeds.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 23:08:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Decrepit mailbox at abandoned farmhouse, Creeds, Virginia. FYI, this should be my last FPC of photos from my 360 documentation of the abandoned farmstead. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This one works for me as a combination of good form and a metaphor of the decay of objects no longer being used by humans. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mailbox is a bit too close to the top for this to be a good composition IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. The bottom crop not only made the mailbox farther from the top (in a relative sense), but also got rid of the distracting out-of-focus area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not real comfortable with the crop, is there a larger original that can be recropped? I also would like to see the mailbox centered top to bottom a bit more. Crop may actually be a bit too tight. Montanabw (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Montanabw: This is the largest version there is. I tried extending the top in PS but the boards on the left come out funny. I could shorten the crop on the bottom if that will help. PumpkinSky talk 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've cropped in the bottom and a small bit on the right. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've cropped a bit more from the bottom but I don't want to cut more off the right side because I like the dead grass. PumpkinSky talk 23:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like the crop here is a wee bit different than the one on the image page (that's odd) but yes, that fixes the issue for me. I do like the touch of old dry grass and the nailhead sticking up out of the tin, adds to the decay theme, but trimming it a bit helped balance the image. Montanabw (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grows on you when you blow it up to full size. I got lost in the textures of the wood and the metal, which mitigated the somewhat busy interplay of forms. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 12:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Poertschach Pfarrkirche hl Johannes d T NW-Ansicht 26062016 2862.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 08:32:07 (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) 08:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many bushes stand on the way, and it's a bit oversaturated IMO. I also think we have to stop with "every verticals should be vertical" and I believe this specific picture would be much improved with a vanishing point for them. - Benh (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar concerns with Benh. Dealing with large vertical angle-of-view is hard enough at ground level, but you appear to be actually below the base of the church. Is the golden cross on the top really that large -- surely it would catch the wind and blow off? I think there's an opportunity for our drone photographers to take pictures of large buildings from an ideal position half-way vertically, or at least from a greater distance horizontally, while avoiding ground features that get in the way. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I really like the soaring feeling this photo gives you. PumpkinSky talk 11:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Back yard in January 2018 North American blizzard.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 11:55:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Pinaceae>
Pinus strobus, White Pine, in a back yard during January 2018 North American blizzard. Pyrus pyrifolia, Asian Pear, with no leaves, is in the lower left. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 11:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Messy. Not sure what's the point here. - Benh (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The strong contrast of colors and the strong snow-swept tree.PumpkinSky talk 14:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too chaotic, the subject is unclear. The bush in front of the tree doesn't help.--Peulle (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination clearly not making it. PumpkinSky talk 15:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedrales de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 62.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 09:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. All by me, Poc o² 09:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 09:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment awesome image that I'd like to support - but is the sky "real"? Its color seems a bit off... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I've reduced a bit the saturation of the sky, but please, bear in mind that the sky you can see e.g. in Munich is not the sky you'll find in the Altiplano over 4000 m high. We've had this discussion several times and there are a bunch of other FPs that look similar:

File:Piedras Rojas, salar de Aguas Calientes, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 69.JPG

File:Valle Arcoiris, Río Grande, Chile, 2016-02-05, DD 16-18 PAN.JPG

File:Catedrales de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 57-60 PAN.JPG

File:Laguna Cañapa, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 70-74 PAN.JPG

File:Laguna Colorada, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 71-73 PAN.JPG

Poc o² 15:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the place, the light, colors, and this sky! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Kuldnokk - Common Starling - Sturnus Vulgaris.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 22:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created & uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably a good idea to run image through QI where it would be borderline. Charles (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel -- Jakubhal 12:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niidurüdi - Calidris alpina schinzii.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 22:03:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created & uploaded by Kristian Pikner - Kruusamägi (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose probably not QI. Charles (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Also, way more unsharp water and stuff than optimal for the composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp area at top is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a big crop, but then the resolution won't be sufficient unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-07-05-Schloß-Caputh-RalfR-N3S 1612.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 21:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Fliesensaal im Schloß Caputh, all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tiles are too soft, especially those on the floor. Compare to this file, all looks more detailed and natural. Probably overHDR'ed / overNR'ed. Some chromatic aberrations at the top, too. --A.Savin 00:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great motive and outstanding composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some chromatic aberrations ? ;-) Look closely, this image features ca's galore on contrasting edges. And as stated by Savin, the image looks unnatural in the details. Some edges are visible, others are completely vanished in the surrounding smudgy rendition of the colors. This isn't even a QI to me. --Granada (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not at FP level. No wow, photographically. (also no embedded colour profile). -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per overoverprocessing and CAs noted by others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2018 -- 0388.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 06:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 11:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What are you all seeing? Is it mainly how the light is hitting those tree trunks, or is there something else I should be looking for? I want to give this photo a chance before voting on it. So far, it's not feeling like an FP to me, but I want to hear you out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: As for me, it's the composition of the three trunks making a "V", as well as the textures in the tree trunks, leaves, and twigs on the ground. PumpkinSky talk 21:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I'll live with it a little longer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This crop really isn't working for me.--Peulle (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea but too unsharp for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, I also find the scene too ordinary, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good picture but not striking or impressive enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all your reviews. --XRay ^talk 10:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aftermath of January 2018 North American blizzard 16.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 15:11:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Tree branch in blizzard aftermath. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Interesting, but nothing worth being featured. The composition is chaotic (but not in a way it looked like it was intended) and the light isn't very pleasing. The foreground (with the main subject) isn't illuminated at all. Kind of contre-jour without really being a contre-jour composition. All in all an average QI but not more. Sorry. As always I hope this didn't sound too harsh but I'm not a native speaker and I often don't know how to express my criticism more gently. --Code (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting and QI, but IMO not FP. Foreground too dark, disturbing bright background. Sorry. --XRay ^talk 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the bright background is the golden hour sunset. PumpkinSky talk 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought this picture would have a lot of trouble at FPC, but to me, it's an excellent composition, as it would be if it were an abstract work of the same lines on paper. It's complex but not chaotic at all to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. Has a very random feel to it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Daniel, I deliberatly composed it to have the large piece of wood where it is so the gold sunset was directly behind. PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XRay.--Peulle (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Clearly not going to make it. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caucasian Biosphere Reserve.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 11:47:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by SKas - nominated by SKas -- KSK (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scene, but looks overprocessed, especially in background. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. The view is beautiful but especially where there isn't snow, it looks strange. Could you try redeveloping this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:D Stuttgart Skulptur Friedrichsbau.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 16:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by Nobvonriedern - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Memorably odd sculpture and a really striking image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 13:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really heads-up shot ... (sorry). Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an interesting sculpture, but apart from it being black and white, there is nothing outstanding about how it was captured, imho. The background is distractingly busy and the subject has some difficulties standing out against it. Using a wider aperture and/or longer focal length for shallower depth of field might have helped to isolate the subject better. --El Grafo (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per El Grafo. --Pugilist (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vihorlat 112.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 19:18:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing special to me about this composition, and I don't like the crop on the right side, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the way, I find File:Vihorlat 088.jpg more interesting, though I don't know whether it would get enough support for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a better one. PumpkinSky talk 04:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. This is not a pleasant or harmonic composition, I'm afraid. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has the elements for a nice winter shot (IOW, what I can see out my window right now, as the temperature drops down below zero Fahrenheit at night), but compositionally it feels like it needs to be cropped down or part of something bigger, and technically it seems overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the contrary, I like the composition, the light on the bushes, and the simplicity of the colors. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poertschach Landspitz Eiche im Herbstkleid 11102013 562.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 04:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the right a little tight cut out. But great shot for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me. There's a lot of CA though, but it doesn't bother me that much as this motif doesn't really invite pixel peeping. Pictures of leaf canopies are generally prone to CAs... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This sooo makes me want to go climbing up the tree! PumpkinSky talk 13:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the tree trunk, but it would be nice if the leaves were a little sharper and parts of the sky weren't - at least to my eyes - burned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I think you've over processed this. The sky is not a realistic colour. I suggest you reset the controls in Lightroom and make more modest adjustments. Don't worry about the sky blowing, for example, as it isn't the subject. -- Colin (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Colin: Thanks for your precious hints. I heeded your advices and applied more moderate adjustments. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could still be less processed but nonetheless fills one with a sense of awe. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 11:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Woman of Bolivarian Armed Forces in a presidential meeting.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 03:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- The Photographer 03:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Complex facial expression to me. I could speculate on what she might deal with at work, but I will not. Anyway, the expression makes the portrait for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Kan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult shot. Without bullet -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~The Photographer implicitly accuses this female soldier of illegal acts and that is unfair and probably libelous. I do not like the inflammatory political diatribe by The Photographer~~ Charles (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this I have to agree with Charles. Please, do not use FPC as a platform for political statements. This is a forum for discussing photos, and if such depict situations that can be seen as political in any way, the photo usually speaks for itself. --cart-Talk 11:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Totally agree about keeping politics out of FPC. PumpkinSky talk 13:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The photo itself is quite interesting; a portrait of a soldier in uniform always makes you think. On the one hand, they're extensions of a state's power, on the other hand they're individuals with their own thoughts and feelings. It's the reason why movies are being made with the focus on individual soldiers in wars; it's an interesting dive into the human psyche. That said, with the current political statement made in the description and the nomination, I can't support this as an image that may appear on the front page of Commons.--Peulle (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In as much as we review the file-description-page as well as the image, this shouldn't be FP per Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. The description cannot contain a political opinion written as though in the editorial voice of Commons. A neutral description of the person and context is required, and leave discussion of politics to the Wikipedia pages where cited facts and quoted opinions belong. Wrt you giving a political reason for taking/publishing the image offered here at FPC, I actually think that is valid: the taking and publishing images for political purpose is a long-standing goal of photography, practised by photojournalists and humanitarian photographers as well as by the military and government employees. I think it is also valid to judge the image on whether it succeeds on that measure. For example: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head.jpg succeeds, IMO, as a world-class political photograph much more so than on technical measures. The danger is of course that our own politics influences voting on such an image, but such is life. I'd support this image if the description page was fixed, as it is a powerful portrait with good expression and bold colours. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: , what do you think that should be changed?. I could add references from ONU, OEA or Admitiría sites to support the description, it was done using Google translator and maybe I'm putting something wrong in double seance that I can't see. Thanks --The Photographer 17:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The description should stick to what is in the photo. So describe neutrally who this person is, and their role there, and what the event is. The commentary about the country in general, or how the government uses meetings for propaganda, are not aspects of the photo, but just your own editorial, so can't be included on Commons. The symbolism of the red chairs might be relevant if you are quite sure they chose red chairs because of the socialist colour rather than just because they happened to have red chairs. I don't really understand "the red platform was armed in front of the Chiquinquirá Basilica". Commons is not Wikipedia, so even if you have sources, we really need to just stick to describing the picture. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Spanish, a more correct translation would be "the red platform beleaguered the front of the Chiquinquirá Basilica", but such language is not neutral so please change that too. --cart-Talk 18:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted comments about crisis in Venezuela and I would also like to apologize, recently some close relatives have died as a result of the crisis in Venezuela and it is difficult for me to edit without thinking about it, I am not trying to justify myself --The Photographer 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand why this must be hard for you and this is one of the reasons, on Wikipedia, they don't want you to write articles about subjects close you. As a photographer you don't have that luxury but you have to try to stay cool. The important thing is to get the photo out there. Now we can get on with the voting.--cart-Talk 18:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That goes beyond photography. I'm so sorry for your losses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Support, with the new text, per above. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per Cart. Photographically it's very good IMHO. PumpkinSky talk 21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vote changed now that we are keeping the political debate out of Commons. The image itself is great: As per my comment above, I feel that such images of military personnel definitely have a place on Commons, as they envoke all sorts of emotion. Images like this one really make the viewer think. "What is the soldier thinking? What is her role in this whole thing? Does she have a family? Is she a state puppet?" On the one hand, soldiers are tools of the state, on the other hand they are people just like the rest of us. Great image to have on Commons, the quality is also very good. As for the personal losses incurred by the 'tog, I am very sorry to hear about that. Stay strong.--Peulle (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the woman's expression, per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 11:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Galtür - Tschafein 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 05:43:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
Info created & uploaded by User:Basotxerri - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wouldn't mind slightly more sharpness, but I just love looking down this road and imagining what other wonderful views are in store for me later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm not sure what subgallery to put this in. What should go after "Places"? I didn't notice a category for roads or bus stops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for nominating this. I don't think that there is any other appropriate gallery than Places#Austria. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do so. I notice you have yet to vote for the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the shot is somewhat dark.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've tone up the shadows a bit. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too dark and nothing special in a way it would deserve being featured, I think. --Code (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like the overcast sky in this instance, but to each his/her own. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Code, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I quite like the composition and how the road fades into the distance between the hills, but there's still something missing. The light isn't very favourable, the sharpness of the left side could be a bit better and the buildings themselves aren't very nice.--Peulle (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great clouds, great atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King. To me, this has the same qualities as this roadscape FP of mine. You want to get going down the road, to see what's ahead. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination, as this photo obviously isn't going to suddenly get 3 more support votes. Thanks for looking at the photo and having your say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 13:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar Bettex in Valle d'Aosta (Italië) 012.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2018 at 05:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # European larch (Larix decidua)
Info Detail European larch (Larix decidua) with large wound to the trunk in the mist. An atmospheric image has been created due to the fog. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good story book illustration, even if some parts look a liiitle, tiny bit overprocessed and like a painting. --cart-Talk 10:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 12:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. I thought it was tilted at first but then I realized that was just the slope. Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like how the mist really helps the eye perceive depth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#European larch (Larix decidua)

File:Cochem and Reichsburg.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 11:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by Xlayor - nominated by Xlayor -- Xlayor (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xlayor (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's not bad, it's just lacking something. I've been here and the image just doesn't give me that "oh I wish I was back there" feeling.--Peulle (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I wish the crops were better. Nonetheless, this image has great colors and atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the crop of the ship and the left house left very unfavourable. Besides, the picture has nothing special for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KOH PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice photo, but not quite an FP to me, though I considered it for a long time. I'd like a little more sharpness and maybe warmer light on the castle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /cart-Talk 13:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seiser Alm 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 07:59:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful scene and great labeling, as usual. But what is that brighter circle on the trees near the left margin? That doesn't seem natural to me, and if it isn't, could you fix it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done You are right, there was a reflection. I removed it --Llez (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks, good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality. Shame about the person. Charles (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice HalfGig talk 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Well composed and nice colors, but the background is not sharp enough. Daniel Case (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But not less sharp than in this one, which you supported at the same day ;-) --Llez (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Wooden fence in Si Phan Don.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2018 at 11:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 12:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and mood. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like this rural scene and, as Daniel says, the colours and the mood, but in some way I find the fence disturbing, blocking too much the two people on the field. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The curvature of the shore is quite nice and the light flattering but it is completely unclear what the two of them are doing. Not an outstanding picture for me. --Ermell (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral--Ermell (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The woman is unraveling a tuft of thread and the man is spading. Now specified in the description -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the cat before. Nice touch! PumpkinSky talk 03:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~But please fix the "Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>"~~. --cart-Talk 09:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks ǃ -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Basile Morin: What's the fence supposed to be stopping? Crocs?--Ermell (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No crocs nor sharks :-) It's a protection to prevent intruders from cultivating the same land. This small area certainly doesn't belong to anyone officially, or the official owner just doesn't care. Since this tiny island is totally submerged during the monsoon, the first locals who decide to settle there after the recession of the Mekong need to give a clear signal to the neighborhood that the domain is not available anymore -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Laos

File:Bilbao - Parque Etxebarria - Noria BT 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2018 at 19:48:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the angle and the shape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this very much. It highlights the ride's construction in a way that makes it look almost industrial. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 00:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was a space station I wasn't aware of at first ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ferris wheel technology research is now on my list of biggest reasons to increase NASA's budget. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- +1 :) --cart-Talk 13:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - This photo is outstanding in a crowd, indeed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No question. Would be Strong Support but the sky is a bit noisy. Still support. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting view. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Panorama Siebenburgenblick.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 17:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Detailed panoramic view from the lookout-tower Siebenburgenblick near Niederheimbach over the Rhine Gorge. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to be a bit more forgiving of "wow" factor (esp. lighting) on these kinds of ultra-high-res scenes, e.g. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic Overview from Glacier Point over Yosemite Valley 2013.jpg, which I might not have supported if it were 10 MP. But here the scene simply doesn't impress me, I'm afraid; the colors look as if this was shot with a cell phone through a airplane window. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't the most exciting panorama we've seen, but the comment above is just so inappropriate/insulting. Charles (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Intentionally it should be a sober, documentary and instructive panorama for use in our encyclopedic projects. --Milseburg (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very detailed diligence work with a high degree of informal value. Wow.--Ermell (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is quite good and the quarry is cool, without it it would be less interesting. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very balanced composition with sharp interesting details --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this picture beautiful, and I like how it's bookended on the left and right by a dirt road through the forest and a mine. I think it would help the photograph if you specified what is being mined. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done It´s Greywacke --Milseburg (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - PumpkinSky talk 01:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the light could have been a bit better, I find the technical quality of QI standard or above, and I really like how the image portrays the snaking river and wine-planted slopes so typical of German river landscapes.--Peulle (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan; I also like the way the river swooshes through it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Peggys Cove Lighthouse, NS.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2018 at 20:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Shawn M. Kent - uploaded by Shawn M. Kent - nominated by Shawn M. Kent -- Shawn M. Kent (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shawn M. Kent (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like your other one, this one is overprocessed and oversaturated. The sky doesn't look natural IMHO. This is the sort of thing they love on 500px. PumpkinSky talk 21:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A bit overdone, but with less enthusiastic processing, this is certainly FP material IMO. - Benh (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PumpkinSky and Benh. Develop it again more naturally and it'll be more likely to become an FP. I personally would clone out the persons, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lovely motif, but overprocessed.--Peulle (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The sky doesn't look natural, and they are some artifacts over the lighthouse -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color is wonky, looks artificial. Montanabw (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overdone color. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pörtschach am Wörther See Johannaweg 5 Villa Wörth 09112014 541.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm usually not much of a 'castle person' but this little crisp villa set among those rich colors, looks absolutely yummy. --cart-Talk 10:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice autumn colors --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cart. The autumnal colors, especially gold ones, are stunning. And in this case I think the tree in front of the villa enhances the photo.PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak support not that sharp - still impressive mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but (again) that huge tree standing in the way kills it for me (unless the subject is not the mansion, but it would still be a suboptimal composition IMO). Otherwise, I would probably support because of the nice colors and reflection. - Benh (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant oppose Love the colors and composition but ... it has far too many unsharp areas compared to other pictures of this sort (the tree in the front, the reflection) and there's a lot of blown highlighting on the castle facade. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart and Uoaei1 HalfGig talk 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is even in the center less sharp than my Vienna opera ... --Granada (talk)
I withdraw my nomination You are right, Julia, Benh and Daniel. In the meanwhile I sold that inferior zoom 28-300mm and stopped with shooting in JPEG. Quality was not sufficient. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piedra del Tormo, Fombuena, Zaragoza, España, 2017-01-04, DD 56.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 20:50:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Evergreen oak (Quercus ilex), Piedra del Tormo, Fombuena, Province of Zaragoza, Spain. All by me, Poc o² 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not near as good as the other, which wasn't good enough for FP in my opinion, and not so rare of a sight (I personally shot several similar photos, but I keep them for myself as souvenir). - Benh (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 00:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think it could lose a bit of sky at the top. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only could it lose some sky at the top, but also some foreground at the bottom, particularly the unsharp lower right corner. Right now, this is not an FP to me, but if you tighten up the form with crops something like what I suggest, I think it will be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: will upload a new version tonight. I see what you mean. Poc o² 12:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: Cropped and pinging @Benh, Ralf Roletschek, and Daniel Case: for information Poc o² 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks, Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually think even more cropping on the bottom could improve the picture further, but that's to your discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Colors look to be washed out, quite ordinary to me. Yann (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 20:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strullendorf E-Werk 9173915-Pano.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 14:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. Good mirror effect but the building has nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the building and reflection are fine, but the building feels bulky in width, so I feel hemmed in by the crops on both sides and want the relaxation of more room. I have no idea whether that was possible, but the result feels tense to me in a way that I think doesn't go along with the intended mood of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ermell (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarvisio Rio del Lago Raibler See mit Fuenfspitz 10032015 0505.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 07:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo invites the viewer to look forward, along the left bank with the trees, and then at the space between that bank and the hill and further forward to the peaks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Great composition, per Ikan, but gets too unsharp too quickly. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, I'm not targeting you... (I've been opposing all ur noms recently). But the composition doesn't catch my eyes... For this sort of photo where the foreground plays a great part in the composition, I believe a wide angle is more suitable to get dramatic converging lines (at most 16mm on your full frame). And also, the light doesn't help (I often oppose mid day lighting photos). But a picture is worth a thousand words :) : [2] Benh (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination @Benh: you help me quite a lot with your honest reviews. I am learning lots, hopefully I will be able to implement all your suggestions in the future. But one thing I will do for sure: to use the 14-24mm more often instead of leaving it in my bag. ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bamberg Bahnhof Güterwägen mit Drahtrollen 0342.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 11:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp only in the center but very interesting image -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support So you find a row of wire bales interesting but not a row of silage bales. ;-) Anyway, it's a good photo along the subjects I like so of course I'll support it. --cart-Talk 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't write that I find the bales uninteresting. Thanks for supporting.--Ermell (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart ... I thought it was one of hers at first. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 21:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info The Dyker Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, is known for its residents' elaborate Christmas lights displays ("Dyker Lights"). All by me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great job! Having tried (and failed) to shoot some much less elaborate X-mas lights, I know how bleeping hard it is to get them in focus. However, I think File:Dyker Lights (62281).jpg is much better. It has a more coherent composition, good lines and the contrast between a sparkly tree on the left and a dark normal one on the right plus no cars. Just my opinion, let's see what the rest of the gang thinks. --cart-Talk 21:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree great job with a tough subject. My Christmas light photos always have the lights blurry. Of the two mentioned. I'll think on which I think is best. PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @W.carter and PumpkinSky: Thanks. I took a lot of pictures that night and only uploaded the ones I like, so would be happy to swap out the nomination if we see support for it. The reason I have a weak preference for this one is just that I find it cleaner, and prefer the composition from the street rather than from the sidewalk. No cars would be ideal, sure, but given how crowded it gets there I'd have to take the picture in broad daylight to get a remotely head-on shot with no cars. I was just happy for a short break in traffic so I could move my tripod where I wanted it, without the dark blur of people in front for this one. :) I also like this one for the intensity of color, despite the house itself being obscured. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't like the third one at all. While I am still undecided about the first two, I lean toward the one currently at FPC, this one, because of the reasons you mention. PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I could support both of the first two, I keep coming back to a slight preference for this one, so I'm casting my support for it. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would support cart's preferred photo, too, and I'm not sure which one I like better. I don't think the 3rd one is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my oft-restated belief that Christmas-lighting displays in the U.S. (and quite a few other countries) are not covered under FoP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I opened discussions in several fora about this and haven't seen much of an argument that the lighting arrangements themselves are copyrightable. As someone else put it, they are typically just following the form of the structures that are already there. Toys, characters, sculptures, etc. sure, but they aren't here. Aside from that, if it's an FoP issue, it should be deleted, and if it's deleted the FPC fails regardless of supports/opposes. On the other hand, opposes here don't actually do anything to resolve the FoP matter. Or am I misunderstanding your intention? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I saw one of your discussions. "[J]ust following the form of the structures that are already there" is not by itself enough, IMO, to keep a Christmas lighting display under the threshoold of originality for purposes of U.S. copyright law. Someone putting up those lights still has choices as to what color to use, what type of lights, and how to space them. I consider those creative choices analogous to the ones that sculptors are presumed to have made regarding how their work will look from certain angles, in certain light, and in context to their surroundings that render all photographs of those sculptures derivative works, at least in the U.S.

Technically, yes, a DR would be the better way to deal with this, but when I do so I would like to include all the relevant images, and there are a lot of them. For now it's just easier to bring this up everytime someone nominates an image of Christmas lighting or someone in costume as a copyrighted character. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: , very nice photo ! Sharp and delighting. Concerning the FoP, as you say you haven't seen much of an argument that the lighting arrangements themselves are copyrightable, see the Eiffel_Tower#Illumination_copyright. No idea if it's the same in the US, although Daniel Case may be right here -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Thanks. To be clear, though, my response to Daniel's vote above is less about arguing whether or not there is an FoP problem here, and more that I would like to see Daniel support or oppose based on the merits of the photo, and to use proper channels to deal with a FoP issue (even leaving a comment here about a DR, if it comes to that). I don't like the idea of saying a whole category of images cannot go through FPC because someday there could be a DR and maybe the community will support deleting it. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eiffel was a special 100th anniversary display, undoubtedly professionally done. Can anyone show us one single documented case of a Christmas display in America actually being copyrighted? PumpkinSky talk 19:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky: , you can't make business with a photo by night of the Eiffel Tower, at any time, without paying copyright fees to the SETE company. This document is in French https://lesjuristesparis.fr/featured-2/a-t-on-vraiment-le-droit-de-photographier-la-tour-eiffel/ but you can translate and it clearly says that -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin That's in France. I was asking about America, where this FPC was taken. PumpkinSky talk 12:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Quebec city, Canada 07.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 01:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- The Photographer 01:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the gold light. PumpkinSky talk 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a pretty picture, but it doesn't feel spectacular enough or have a special enough composition to my mind for me to consider it an FP. I actually think a vehicle in front of you (closer than the corner, maybe someone on a motorcycle or bicycle) and something more recognizable in the sky (discrete clouds or maybe somewhat warmer light) would help the composition a lot and might make me react differently, but I also know there are many more spectacular motifs in Quebec. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice angle, but the upper chimney looks weirdly stitched. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same impression like you but it's not a striched image. ~~I will upload the RAW file~~ Daniel Case will find the raw file in the file description :P. --The Photographer 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but not special enough to be FP. Yann (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 04:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freistadt Pfarrkirche Nothelferaltar 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 09:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info High altar (Altar of the Holy Helpers) at the parish church Freistadt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master of the Danube school (Lienhard Krapfenbacher?), around 1520. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image seems to need perspective correction. (See horizontal line over the upper windows). Also a strange vertical glow on the right. Left and right below the photo is not really sharp.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Famberhorst: I did a minor perspective correction with the altarpiece as reference (not the window). The greenish vertical glow is light from the next stained glass window on the right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perspective correction not convincing.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm having trouble feeling this as an FP, and I compared 3 of your previous FP winged altarpiece photos to this photo, to help myself understand why and make sure I wasn't misremembering that they were sharper. File:Stift Ossiach Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg has more contrast and is (or at least feels) sharper. File:Wien Deutschordenskirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg also has more contrast, including the helpful presence of some paintings that refresh the eye with a contrast of texture and medium, and it's a spectacular motif. File:Pfarrwerfen Kirche Innenraum 01.jpg also looks sharper to me and has the bonus of some beautiful stained glass windows. I think the motif in this photo could be an FP, but since you can't make it have as much contrast as the others, it would in my opinion need more nearly pin-point sharpness and perhaps different light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: This one is a bit older than the ones you mention, and I have elaborated my techniques in the meantime a bit. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the symmetry here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria

File:Golden Euonymus in January 2018 North American blizzard.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 21:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Golden Euonymus in January 2018 North American blizzard. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very strong feeling of lateral movement at a slant, nice contrast of colors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sugar glaze on pastas spinach at first sight from the thumbnail :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice pleasing pattern that would make a good textile print. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Riocreuxia torulosa 2017 12 30 3824.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 10:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by Alandmanson -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. A little bit less noise would be nice, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basil PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me the picture is not perfect. a lot of noise and disturbing elements. Also too few Pixels.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The plant is beautiful, but I'm just not feeling this as an FP, I think because I'd like a somewhat longer DoF and warmer light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) adult male.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 15:30:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 18:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo, good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the shine of the coat highlights the antelope. A very good picture. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice capture but the shadow detail in various areas (front legs, back of the neck) is completely lost. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically impossible to be otherwise I think with a black animal without digital manipulation. Charles (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dear Charles it is absolutely possible and please, take a look to the note "black shadow", It's a total black shadow that loss completely details aforementioned by dear King and you could up the shadows in lightroom to fix it, however, do it selective and careful because the result could be unnatural. Also you could simply buy a cheap anti hars contrast lens. A hug --The Photographer 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background not as sharp as maybe it could be, but it's not the subject of the image. I like the composition ... as if you'd caught him stepping out of the bathroom or something. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Proud guy very well portrayed.--Ermell (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd like to see more of the hind legs, but what you got is sufficient for an FP, and those antlers are memorable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment horns, not antlers... Charles (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the difference and looked at w:Antler. "Antlers are extensions of an animal's skull found in members of the deer family. They are true bone and are a single structure.[...]In contrast, horns, found on pronghorn, sheep, goats, bison, cattle, and many other bovine, are two-part structures. An interior of bone (also an extension of the skull) is covered by an exterior sheath grown by specialized hair follicles, the same material as human fingernails and toenails." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the real practical difference is that antlers are shed and horns aren't. Charles (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla

File:Corallus caninus.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 13:34:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Jythis - uploaded by Jythis - nominated by Price Zero -- Price Zero|^talk 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a picture Price Zero|^talk 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the best view (from the back, eyes not visible), nor the best image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. Also probably too noisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not only per others but overexposed area on snake and more unsharpness than we can tolerate. Great colors though. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Price Zero|^talk 04:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Sarner Alp (1853 meter) via Präzer Höhi (2119 meter) naar Tguma (2163 meter) 002.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 18:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Metal cross.
Info The tight metal cross in an alpine landscape at the highest point is exceptional. Usually it is a wooden cross. Mountain trip from Sarner Alp (1853 meter) via Präzer Höhi (2119 meter) to Tguma (2163 meter). Cross at highest point of ridge (Tguma 2163 meters). There is a lot of rain coming. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry like Daniel. Right from the main object I see an object that also disturbs the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. Nice photo, but I don't find the composition compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 19:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:20171122 Khone Phapheng Falls 3923 DxO.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 08:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Khone Phapheng Falls. All by me -- Jakubhal 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exciting and quite good, IMO. The sky helps by creating more drama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 11:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support dramatism adds something special Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Because I would crop away the top part to improve -in my view- the composition, and get rid of the overexposed part in the process. - Benh (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As technically good as it's going to get, I guess ... but so dramatic! Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I agree with Benh: the clouds are very nice, but sometimes you have to make some sacrifices to improve the overall picture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this enchanting. I like the way it converges in the back center. HalfGig talk 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Adolph Tidemand & Hans Gude - Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 20:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Landscape
Info Bridal journey in Hardanger is an iconic painting illustrating Norwegian national romanticism. Painted by the renowned Adolph Tidemand and Hans Gude in collaboration, it currently resides in the Norwegian National Art Gallery in Oslo. Image created by EwGseaUks6vhrQ at Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Peulle (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fine - more paintings. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture of the original painting. --Pugilist (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media#Landscape

File:Long stack of pink white and blue silage bales.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 14:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info In a way this nom is related to the discussion at a delist request a bit further down the page. After the first failed nom of these bales, I took some comments made by Poco and Martin to heart and decided to re-shoot. I waited for the perfect day with lots of sun, right time of day (angle of light), no wind, tripod, best camera, everything for making perfect photos. Right. Still Mother Nature had a surprise waiting for me when I got back home and looked at the photos... The "Poco version" was shot across a field and got the most of it (pixel peeping required). This is the "Martin version", shot at shorter distance so not affected. :-) All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 14:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darn, Mother Nature can be a mean old *bleep* sometimes. I like the "Poco version" a lot, but yeah, the more hot air you get between you and the subject, the more pronounced the heat haze :-/ Anyway, this one's good in its own right, smells like summer for me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can nominate it as "Natural phenomena". --cart-Talk 15:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support How could Martin not like the Martin version? So I clearly {{s}} --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the failed one and this one. PumpkinSky talk 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Composition really works for me, and I like the crinkly texture of the silage bales. The other photo is good but I like this one better. I don't think it failed, PumpkinSky, as it was never nominated for anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: It failed, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pink blue and white silage bales.jpg. We must be talking about different photos. PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm talking about the other photo that cart linked above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not so special for me. In my country you see this at every farm.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same here.:) Some photos are more about how they are made than the rarity of the subject. --cart-Talk 20:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiastic support as I had liked the first nomination. This one really works ... perhaps we could tell people that it's a giant marshmallow farm? Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good quality image, but I do struggle to find any wow. Maybe related to the thing, that my father is also a farmer or to the thing, that I'd like to see more space around all of this (foreground is ok but the upper part - meh). Kruusamägi (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I kind of wish we had the light from this photo in the other composition. :) Something about the crop on the right is unsettling, like I wish that either the rear bales were fully in frame or even more cut off. Alternatively, is this perspective corrected? It seems like the left side should be moving back towards the back of the shot a bit more, rather than the tops and bottoms having roughly straight lines across the frame. Regardless, it's an interesting, visually pleasing subject, and otherwise technically nicely done. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Well, you saw what happened to the light at the other photo, so a no-go, sorry. (There is this too, but it also suffers from heat haze and so far I've not heard anyone say that the haze is a cool feature.) :) Both sides are a bit cropped since there was so much junk on the farm around the bales and such things had been commented on in the previous nom. With this crop, a small perspective correction was made since it fitted better with the framing. I can of course provide the whole original photo if need be. --cart-Talk 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although the picture is well executed, I have problems to find something extraordinary here.--Ermell (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case, Gulliver's marshmallows ː-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but even after looking at it several times day after day I don't see the point here. --Code (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Common tiger (Danaus genutia genutia) male underside.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 13:29:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The butterfliest butterfly picture I've ever seen ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very sharp --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat. --cart-Talk 19:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 18:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 20:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 21:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Elderly refugee portrait captured in Khazer frontline camp. Northern Iraq, Western Asia-2. 10 November, 2016.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 21:36:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Mstyslav Chernov - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm moved and would support, but where's the personality rights warning? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Please be patient with new FPC users (I mean the creator/uploader) who aren't used to all the formal stuff.--cart-Talk 23:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks, cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice colors, enigmatic facial expression, interesting topic, but not extremely sharp. See at 2 Mpix. ~~Also the categorization could be improved (gender, kind of portrait, facial expression, posture, clothes, etc.)~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Basile and because of the green an red CAs along the headscarf --Llez (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Basile and Liez.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support For the expression, which just says it all; it outweighs the blurred stubble and CA for me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Support HalfGig talk 21:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Sorry, post-closing detected invalid vote per this discussion. Outcome will be altered to not featured. --cart-Talk 12:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very pity, but a false focus point. The focus point must be at the eyes! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eutropis macularia (bronze grass skink) eating a frog.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 14:10:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Scincidae_(Skinks)
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. For even better photographic impact I would crop some off the bottom, even cutting off some of the frog's body in the shade. ps can you id frog? Charles (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the snake is taking care of the crop just fine ...

. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of those hand-in-mouth moments we all dread. Charles (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done New upload with changed crop, thanks Charles for the suggestion, though it's different from your note, that I find too extreme. I want to reveal the shapes of the two animals, and cutting that much would hide the bodies, that I find interesting here. Concerning the frog, unfortunately I was unable to identify the species. Any clue welcome ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New crop is good. Charles (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yuk! ;) --cart-Talk 19:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo has a big impact. You have to feel sad for the frog. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just horrible.., for the frog.--Cayambe (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The snake seems to be particularly fond of frog's legs ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 21:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Scincidae_(Skinks)

File:Janaki Temple--IMG 7555-Pano.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 09:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Nepal
Info created by Bijay Chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Of course this is a spectacular motif, but you need a contrasting sky for an FP of it. The sky is almost the same white color as most of the temple. I'd love to see a similar picture with a blue sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Peulle (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the sky is just fine. Suits well with the tone of everything else and makes it more calm. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry also per Ikan, the whole photo is too white. --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too white, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evolution of a Tornado.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 06:47:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by JasonWeingart, nominated by Rhododendrites. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done composite of 8 images showing the evolution of a tornado as it moves across the landscape. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply staggering. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Illusion of Natural Phenomena, that may penalize the (less impressive but) real ones. How close is this photomontage to the reality ? Where are the 8 original images used to generate such artificial composition ? How much alterated are the original colors and contrasts with Photoshop ? What is still natural in this imaginary scenary ? Why a single tornadoe couldn't be enough, or a video ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

0:43 is the timelapse this image came from. https://vimeo.com/229342143 That should answer your questions.JasonWeingart (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info This picture is sold 49,99 $ on this website... Cheaper here, lol ː-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why lol? Yes, it's cheaper here. That's what happens when a photographer who usually sells his work decides to release an image with a free license on Commons. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarned customers will pay 49,99 $ for the wage and material on the website, while they will only pay for the material when informed that the licence is free. This relative wage is lol for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support As an image with impact - superb! --Alandmanson (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This creates an impact too File:Айсберг_в_районе_ЗФИ.jpg, though the composition looks real -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I agree with Basile. It's a striking photo, but as a single composition, its form doesn't work for me, and as something of educational value, a non-composite set of 8 photos or a composite with lines between each exposure would be real and therefore more useful. And I'll bet that each of the 8 separate compositions would work a lot better than this single one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Combining multiple exposures in one image is as old as photography. We don't require other techniques (such as large panorama stitches or HDR tone-mapped images) to be accompanied with the separate exposures or the RAW file so you can judge if it has been altered too much. Perfectly valid format to express this "evolution of a tornado", even if you can think of or even prefer alternatives. See Category:Multiple exposure and File:Johnnie Walker Splash.JPG, File:La Jolla Cove cliff diving - 02.jpg, File:Solar Eclipse May 20,2012.jpg, File:Acropoclipse.jpg. @Basile Morin and Ikan Kekek: not sure your preference for an alternative presentation format (which isn't on Commons) is in itself a valid reason to oppose. It's a multiple exposure photo and should IMO be judged as one, not as "not as good as a video". -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I judge it as wanting formally, to my eyes. However, it's certainly interesting. I'm going to cross out my oppose vote because of that, but not because of your point about techniques: Each photo has to stand on its own as a work of art, information or both, and I think it's also fair to judge whether a particular method is more successful in one situation, rather than another. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a completely fake scenery, that gives the illusion of a tornadoe with 7 centers. We can't devine it's a photomontage without reading the description, contrary to a traditional motion picture where the subjects are usually well delimited and can be isolated on the surface. Then a valid reason to oppose this FPC is simply this scenery doesn't exist, and is certainly impossible. Although it gives the false impression of an incredible phenomena, completely transcendent. How was the sky really, now we know there was 8 pictures inside ? Amazing what we can do on Photoshop. So can we compose a completely unreal landscape, with a bit of blue sky there, some shadows here, a big cloud in the center, and then allege the creation is natural ? Sorry an artificial landscape doesn't match for me with the word of natural. That's my main reason to oppose and even if not share by everyone, I hope this idea is acceptable here -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do comment in bad faith. Not all photos needs to be realistic, and here the photographer doesn't try to deceive anyone (or, unintentionally, only the ones who don't read captions and are allergic to novelty or different approaches) - Benh (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment gives a misinterpretation of mine -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with both Colin and Basile and I end up at the side of 'oppose'. Yes, it's a spectacular photo and the technique is well-established and all but I think it goes a bit too far in merging these photos. If only some element in the pic made it very clear (without reading the description) that it was made up from separate images, it would be fine. It would have been easy to keep say the ground from each individual photo, the resulting photo would have had sharp lines at the bottom separating the shots. That would give you a hint of what's going on, but here every effort has been made to blend these pics as seamlessly as possible and the photo can be misinterpreted. In the examples given above, the whisky shot (pardon the pun) is not a photo-merge as stated on the file's page (trick not merge, there is a difference), we are pretty sure we only have one sun and one moon here on Earth and it is clear to most people that the jump from the cliff is not made by a string of cloned women. --cart-Talk 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. The image is titled "Evolution of a Tornado", and I'd expect any usage of it to be similarly captioned. I didn't need to be a meteorologist to work out this was one tornado, photographed multiple times. Is it a requirement to know exactly what you are seeing without a caption? Would you know what this photo is without some help? What about this photo which most certainly "doesn't exist, and is certainly impossible". Do some viewers might think this is a clever group of seven athletes? I think the allegation that the photographer "allege[s] the creation is natural" is dishonest and unfair, Basile, as is the claim it is "completely fake". A complete fake would be where someone replaces the sky in a photo, or superimposes a big moon from another shot. This is no more fake that long exposure photography or flash photography have the ability to create images our eyes would never see. All photography plays with time, shortening it, lengthening it, or slicing it up. The actual scene here, photographed 8 times, is real, and combined into one image. "Natural" would deny any form of photography or manipulation of light that wasn't available to the human eye unaided. Natural is this and unnatural is this. Natural would disallow star trails and most of our deep space images. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive image. The fact the the image is not "real" and have been processed does not change this. I assume almost all FP's are processed. The fact that the image does not contain a disclaimer or explanation does not exclude the image from being FP'ed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin convinced me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Question As this picture is computer-generated, why not nominating it in this particular section Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated ? Same as this File:Photomontage_(Forggensee_Panorama)_-2.jpg was naturaly not added in the FP category Objects#boats. There are 7 tornadoes shown here, and the composition is based on 8 photos. How was the last one used for ? Strange blue sky, over something heavy, which may come from a completely different picture, just fanciful, and pasted over to create an attractive visual effect. But we will probably never know, and may not learn so much about the topic as long as what we see is digitally-manipulated with mysterious original photos. Description says "This prolific supercell went on to produce at least 12 tornadoes and at times had two and even three tornadoes on the ground at once". Seems that the montage was made to give the illusion of seven tordadoes on the ground at once. Making like a fake, since it's said three is possible. Who is not an expert and has never seen a tordano in his garden can very well misinterprete the image, as long as it's not sorted among the other computer-generated works -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a photo montage like the example you give. (Btw, one can actually generate a multi-exposure image with some Nikon cameras and in the film days it was done by exposing the film more than once). Many of the images at FP are "computer-generated" from multiple photos, including many of mine. As for your comment that the blue sky "may come from a completely different picture" -- you are now actively accusing the photographer of dishonesty. Please stop. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not your first unpleasant comment at my destination, gentleman Colin. See also on this discussion. Then please keep in mind two things ː 1) English is not my mother tongue and I make an extra effort to communicate with everyone here, 2) All your crits come nearly always from your own contradictions. Example on this thread when you start saying my claim for fake is dishonest and unfair, nice, nice. Or three days ago, when you had "better things to do on a Friday evening than arguing about elementary portraiture on the internet", wow, so respectuous, this, sir, sure ǃ I applaud with two hands and take the example right now, perfect teacher ː-) Then please be coherent and polite, sir. My question is legitimate, and as far this picture is a photo-montage, we can suppose anything about the provemance of the 8 images for 7 tornadoes. As I wrote ː "we will probably never know" (and that's certainly truer than the idea that everyone is fair and measured with their manipulations), this means we have no clue to know, and I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty, just speculating and guessing, as anyone is free to do, and contrary to you, clearly, but here by quote. Thus, please give an end to your innuendo. That's a strange picture that doesn't look like real. It's more "graphic design and photomontage" than "photography", sorry. If we don't agree, that's no problem for me, but that's my feeling, and this feeling is valid. As well my question above is valid too, and my oppose vote valid also. You shows strange manners to disqualify people as soon as they simply give their opinions, sir. I don't know the user who uploaded that file, but what I can see on his profile is that person made only a single edit here, only one upload and nothing more. Image used for a commercial site ː self promotion ? Image rights free here and sold away ː logics ? Excuse, excuse, oh, one more question, one more doubt, and I had to stop, oops -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, rather than accept that both the title and description explain the photographic effect here, you accuse the photographer of fakery and claim he is alleging this is a natural scene. You suggest the blue sky may have come from another photo. Your speculation, as you call it, is in bad faith. Your whole theme is to discredit this image, and the photographer behind it. I don't find that acceptable. Weingart appears to be open about which of his images are composites and even gives tutorials on how to create some effects. The result is no more "fake" than my own File:Big Ben at sunset - 2014-10-27 17-30.jpg which does not really have lines of colour along Westminster bridge. That's a composite of five 13 second exposures, each of which contains an image that the human eye could not perceive.
Now you accuse the photographer of "self promotion" yet the file description page contains no links to their commercial web page nor any mention that the photographer is professional. The image was actually uploaded as part of the "Wiki Science Competition 2017 in the United States". Yes, the problem here, Basile, is you "don't know the photographer" and on the internet that makes you brave enough to insult and discredit him and his work. -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile, if you don't like the image, that's fine, but why on earth are you making this about the photographer, including making many bizarre and incorrect assumptions? The uploader is a photographer who indeed sells his work. There is only one upload because he decide to donate this photo specifically for the Wiki Loves Science initiative. He didn't even include a link to his website, nevermind try to promote his sales. It is a good thing when someone decides the share their photos with Commons, and we should be reinforcing it, not assuming the worst. Again, I have no problem with your objection to featuring the photo, but why not let it just be about the photo? (For the record, I do not know the uploader either. I came across the image because I'm involved with Wiki Loves Science as a volunteer). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the picture, but I respect the artist. I understand the purpose, just it doesn't work for me, as Ikan, Cart and Daniel Case explained more diplomatically. It's a good computer-generated work, IMO, and the illusion of a 7 tordanoes hurrican is excellent. Like a good fake, really well done, that's my impression. Congrats for the manipulation, the artist is skilled and I respect the work for its quality on the technical aspect. So why I don't like the picture ? No wow, very artificial, too complicated, and misleading appearance. My apologies for my speculations concerning the scope, they were perhaps wrong, but they could have been right, since they were just speculations. A question is not a charge, that's just a question which needs answers. Same when I ask "What is still natural in this imaginary scenary ?", I'm not saying the artist is a crook, I'm just guessing it's very far from something natural. That's all the difference -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown any respect for this artist. Read Just asking questions. Negative speculation in bad faith is just a rhetorical device to damage. Accusing the guy of self promotion, even when several editors point out that you couldn't be more wrong, is not made acceptable by sticking a "?" on the end of the sentence. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Colin. Photography often makes things visible we otherwise wouldn't see (at least not that way). In this case the author fully informed us about what he did and the result is great. I can't see anything wrong here. Additionally, multi licensing perfectly legitimate. --Code (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A VI to be sure but, as other opposers have noted, misleading as it presently stands. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have voted one way or the other otherwise, but I'm going to Support simply because of Basile completely uncalled for personal comments. -- KTC (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote only on the merits of the photo. Votes should not be used as a way of "getting back" at users or something like that. If you have a problem with someone, please take it to COM:AN where such issues are handled. --cart-Talk 23:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN is for situations where administrative action (e.g. a block) is required. This is just someone insulting a photographer in order to justify their oppose vote. Many of the admin curators on this site don't think highly of photographers either, so going there would be about as helpful as asking Trump to help settle the gender pay dispute at the BBC. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, then now I will always Support KTC, just because the concept is so clever -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Colin. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By a strange coincidence, Jason Weingart has 24 storm photos published in today's Guardian newspaper. The image here was donated to Commons as part of the "Wiki Science Competition 2017 in the United States". -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis is my image. The reason I didn't simply run 8 images across with no blending is because it's been done, countless times. I try to be different when I can, which is tough anymore because of the amount of work out there. The reason 8 images were used for 7 stages of the tornado is because I wanted to include the updraft (the main part of the storm) which had become obscured by low level clouds by the time tornadogenesis started occurring. Certainly wasn't trying to be deceptive. I think the title "Evolution of a Tornado" is description enough. I also have the timelapse the image came from posted on all of my outlets, not hard to find with some minor searching. Beyond actually putting all of the stages together to one image, what you see is pretty true to life, even that blue sky that hung around for a bit. The entire reason I gave away my rights was I thought it would be cool to compete in a science-centered photo contest. I have added a note to my site saying the image is available for free through Wikimedia Commons. Thank you all for the kind words and the nomination. I am honored. No matter what your feelings are about the image or me, it got folks talking and that is what good art does. I take that as a huge compliment. JasonWeingart (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason, welcome here ǃ Very nice to meet you on Commons, and your explanations are so instructive. Also that video showing where the images come from (between 0:43 and 1:16 as it seems) helps a lot to understand how the whole was mixed together. Maybe a link to this film would be great in the description. But you're definitely an excellent photographer and camera operator. So, first of all, don't be upset if what I'm saying is not to promote your composition here (which looks different from a traditional single shot), as you may have many other supporters in this area who may be so enthusiastic and think differently. Also, most of us are not only votants but also creative photographers who regularly struggle with strong oppositions for submitted works, see for example those interesting pictures somewhat exceptional but however not promoted Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Melon_leaping_on_Awaji_Island_(10504964235).jpg or Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Loojang_05.05.2017_-_Sunset_05.05.2017_copy.jpg Secondly, one of the main reasons I'm not fan of this present piece is that it doesn't ressemble to your other works (from your website). Nearly all of your other creations seem to come from one single shot, whereas this special one is a photoshop montage (technically good). Actually, that's the reason why I suggest above to sort it among the many other (excellent) computer-generated creations. You say you tried to invent something new by merging these pictures, because slicing the image has already been done countless times. This originality is definitely respectable and innovative. Though, is this attempt a success ? In my view, it's impossible to look at this montage without interpreting a supernatural supercomplex tornado. Even if I know it's an educative picture showing the evolution, I think it just feeds an unreal representation of something natural. And that's my main problem with this particular creation. Not sure I would have opposed one of your other "simple shot" beautiful photographs. On the video, it seems that the blue sky is far away from the dense part of the dark cloud. Also I tried to slice this picture in seven vertical frames, to observe the first slice, then it's hard to believe that tornado here on the left is located so close to the luminous area. Saying this just from the video I observed, so this is more a question to you than a statement. Is this first frame sliced on the left really realistic on a scientifical aspect ? But apart from the blue sky, which is another concern, this represention close to "true life" with 7 merged tornadoes on the same visual is still too far from a traditional "natural phenomena picture", usually shot in just one push of the shutter button. Playing with time is not playing with space, then the statement "yes all the featured pictures are digitally-manipulated" is inexact. There's a limit to such manipulations before considering the picture is similarly designed. That's mainly a photoshop creation with big parts assembled, combine and merged, so what you finally see is definitely not "true life". It's more an idea. Anyway, thanks Jason for taking some of your time to talk with us ! Hope to meet you more often here. See some of the great creations we already have on Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, we get that you prefer a simple one-frame image, or a video. There are other forms of photography, which are perfectly respectable and reasonable ways of viewing the world. Good enough even to be entered to a science competition rather than a "Photoshop fakes" competition. Many photos of natural phenomena are the result of processing multiple shots, whether that is focus stacked macro, exposure blended starry sky + landscape, tone mapped sunsets, long exposure light painting, star trails, pretty much all astronomy photos, and on and on. The first time one sees a light painting photo, one may not appreciate that the image was never all there. So this presentation is novel to you and you find it illusory. We got that two days ago. Can we now move on? All photos play with time: it is the defining feature of a photograph vs any other form of visual art. -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support This shot is amazing, and useful. Agree with Colin - Benh (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding work and high encyclopedic value. Thanks for sharing! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Colin and others. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Buiobuione - India - Jaipur - Galtaji Temple - monkey.tif, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 16:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_monkeys)
Info created by Buiobuione - uploaded by Buiobuione - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Buiobuione}}|]] -- Buiobuione (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Buiobuione (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very grainy from ISO 1000 Charles (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't look at it in large image viewer because it's a .tif, but I'll take Charles' word for the graininess; besides, we have a lot of pictures like this already and it just doesn't stand out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case - it's not outstanding.--Peulle (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support objection, gents! Yes, the image is grainy but its resolution is huge. So don't pixelpeep at 100% - just scale down a bit and everything's fine. The composition is very appealing imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tiff file, hence the huge size. Resolution is only normal. The sharpness is poor as well as the graininess problem. Charles (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6,000 × 4,000 is much better than the average resolution for a subject of this kind - and the absolute max res the 80D offers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely! I agree with Martin, quality looks fine. -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant oppose This is certainly not a bad picture, much better than anything I have ever been able to achieve in this direction. The noise is acceptable for me at sizes suitable for normal viewing, but its over-all quality is nothing to be excited about. The subject is cute, but it has tough competition in that department and, as already mentioned above, it doesn't really manage to stand out there. The composition is a bit too centred for my taste, a tighter crop on the left and more en:lead room on the right would be more pleasing imho. The dark eyes and lack of a en:Catch light make it appear a bit less … well … lively than other pictures we've seen here before. You could certainly argue that these are just minor details, but I think these details are what separates a very good from a oh my Bob, this is awesome picture. --El Grafo (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for your opinions and dedicated time to view my picture - Buiobuione 14:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment but please sign it -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fusiturris similis 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 21:57:40 (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) 21:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good quality and pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Ikan, plus I love the colors; for some reason the colors make me think of banana ice cream with swirls of chocolate. PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 23:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 23:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PumpkinSky. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Pumpkin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Paraboloide circular 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 19:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/objects
Info All by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pleasing shapes and colors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful mathematics. --cart-Talk 08:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 20:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clever! and very nice, also. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isn't it odd that humans make an imperfect physical representation of an abstract shape, and then try to photograph it as perfectly as possible? dllu (t,c) 03:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it odd at all that such mathematical objects are made for educational purposes. We 'apes' still learn things faster if we can combine theoretical knowledge with a tactile experience. --cart-Talk 15:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the making of the object that's odd... it's that the fact that we try to photograph the said tactile object with an intense studio setup (rather than, say, generating a perfect rendering of it) that strikes me as being somewhat whimsical. dllu (t,c) 21:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per dllu: a photograph of an actual object that looks like computer graphics – usually it's the other way round ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Development of hogweed bud, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 13:44:04 (UTC)

First bud
Bud opening
Just before blooming

Info These were three of about a hundred hogweeds growing along a ditch. They grew under almost identical conditions and were selected for a series to show the development of the bud from first stage up to just before blooming. All by me, -- cart-Talk 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trouble is, the backgrounds are all so different (and little depth of field). Charles (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ditch was not uniform in color and I liked that the different color schemes matched the different plants, giving each photo a softer look than a very contrasting unform green or something like that. The focus is just on the plants and not on the background. These plants are really big so they are all focus stacked and the background was about a meter or so behind each plant, so not so "shallow" DoF. Just covering the middle plant required eight photos to get the entire plant sharp. The scale here is a bit different than 4 cm butterflies. :) Are you suggesting I should only nominate one of them and skip the set thing? --cart-Talk 14:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the First bud which is not in focus, but the others are nice and sharp if over-exposed. I just don't think they work brilliantly as a set, perhaps the different sizes is a problem too. Charles (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Claus 17:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good and very nice Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Works for me. The bud may be a little less sharp than the others, and I wouldn't mind a little more sharpening of that frame if it could help, but I think it's good enough to be an FP, as are the others. It's also OK with me that these are 3 different plants - that's clearly indicated in the file descriptions. One question: The top of the last one isn't already blooming? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the stamens have emerged and the petals are still unfolded and curled up around the center of each flower. When it blooms, the petals will become much larger and the whole shape of the plant will go from the "ball shape" and form a "disc" of flowers. --cart-Talk 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I did some very light selective sharpening on the First bud. --cart-Talk 15:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's nice. I would have clicked "thank", but I don't see a link to the nomination page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Ikan. :) These set noms are always a bit tricky to handle IMO. If you want to get hold of the nom page, you have to first click on 'edit' and after that just cancel your editing whitout doing any editing. That will set you on the set nom page. On that subject, I was looking for somewhere to add the category for this nom, couldn't find it though. AFAIK promoted set noms also show up in the 'normal' FP categories. --cart-Talk 15:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jakubhal 23:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 11:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply wow!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Apiaceae_(Carrot_family)

File:Carnegiea gigantea or Sahuaro or Saguaro.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 02:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Imposing and excellent quality. Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- PumpkinSky talk 03:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not flipping us off I hope ;) - Benh (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Benh & Charles, I have looked all over for that mythical 5 fingered sahuaro! I will come across it one day! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice - you could always clone out the sixth finger!! Charles (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yesss! --cart-Talk 08:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) --Peulle (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 20:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Talk to the hand, Mr. Cactus, talk to the hand (per Benh). Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modarate Support It would have been great to see the cactus in its environment, but ok --Poc o² 08:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Dead Banana Plants in Snow.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 01:54:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Zingiberales
Dead banana plants in snow. PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A perfect metaphor of Goethe's quote: "Perish and become! The dark earth you shall walk as a sullen one." -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Und so lange Du das nicht hast, Dieses: Stirb und Werde! Bist Du nur ein trüber Gast Auf der dunklen Erde." von Selige Sehnsucht, 1806. PumpkinSky talk 03:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It illustrates the metaphor well and is doubtless a QI, but I don't see it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The composition works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What "composition"? Point camera at dead leaves. Press shutter button. Sorry but I think Ikan and Johann are reading too much into a snap, and there is a danger we start awarding stars to very average photos just because the nominator/creator is a regular. I could take a photo of my kitchen food waste recycling box and quote Goethe, and if I stick the totally random arrangement of waste veg in the "boring dead centre" then it would have exactly the same "composition" as this.

As a general observation: I do think that for images that aren't of an obviously "wow" subject, the nominator really does have to explain in their nomination why they are going wow. Because if they can't explain it to us, why should we work at it? And when we have to work at it, we get the sort of bias where we assume there is greatness among our friends nominations and try to invent greatness in a photo that really isn't great. Why this is among the finest of all images on commons? Is just a snap of some dead banana plants, and not some photographic work of art. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Colin: Opposers really should be able to state the reasons for their oppositions without such condescension and arrogance but we all know you're fully incapable of that. PumpkinSky talk 12:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pumpkin, friendly warning: the last person who couldn't handle his greatness being brought down to earth by an oppose or two at FPC without making personal attacks, was recently blocked indefinitely. I see some dead banana leaves and a JPG with the correct exposure and focus sharpness I'd expect from >£4000 worth of camera equipment. I don't see great art or great technique. Please tell us: what is "finest" about this. What should make us go "wow!". -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - - @Colin: Good one Colin, threaten me. Go right ahead. For the record, I don't mind the opposes one bit, it's the appalling way you treat people I won't put up with. You're the one making personal attacks. Why can't you just say something like "I see correct exposure and focus sharpness but I don't see great art or great technique." There's no need for hurling insults and condescension at people the way you do. You're the one who needs to come off his high and mighty greatness. PumpkinSky talk 13:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Pumkpin, you have done nothing but throw insults at me, and now you terminate your nomination early. The image, the nomination text, the other reviews, the procedures here at FPC, the systemic bias as FPC... these things are all up for discussion and disagreement. There are some who think all self nominations are arrogant. There are some who think FPC is a gentleman's club where we mutually support each other's images for promotion. You still haven't explained why you think this is among the finest images on Commons, nor what makes you go wow when you see it. You think a red-link newbie could get away with nominating an ordinary static photo of a dead plant without being drowned in "no wow" oppose votes? -- Colin (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info The comment above is certainly scornful. "Point camera at dead leaves. Press shutter button." As if it was rubish. It's totally disrespectful. That's not food waste, that's not garbage. This is a natural object with tones, texture and temperature. The so-called "friendly warning" above is not friendly at all. Talking about blocking in the actual situation is even absurd. And if there were masters for nominations here, more skillful and more visionary than others, we wouldn't meet such lamentable fiascos like this one Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Rose,_Sheila's_Perfume,_バラ,_シーラズ_パヒューム,_(14525862372).jpg. Ridiculous -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: All you've done is throw insults at me and many others. At that, I'm bowing out of this conversation because it will no doubt prove fruitless. PumpkinSky talk 14:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, FPC is to choose images "highlighted as some of the finest on Commons". I don't sugar the pill but my complaint about the image is not "scornful", unlike Basile's "lamentable fiasco" language. There is no display of brilliance here from anyone other than some Nikon engineers. Absolutely no indication the photographer did any more than point their camera dead centre at the dead plant and press the shutter. This is the uncomfortable fact of this nomination and PumpkinSky has been asked to suggest otherwise and refused to do so. Basile: see this definition. Photographing a "natural object with tones, texture and temperature" does not guarantee one an FPC. Photographing something non-beautiful, whether a dead plant or food waste, and expecting "wow" is rather more challenging than photographing a pretty flower. There is no "composition" here other than "arrange viewfinder/zoom such that most of the subject is in the frame". Come on guys, show a bit more respect for FPC. Finest. Finest. Finest. The most juvenile thing one can do, when wanting to attack another reviewer, is to point at one of that's reviewer's nominations and insult it as being even worse. So well done Basile, for descending to that level. Good evening. -- Colin (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PumpkinSky: I agree with you and appreciate the way you manage everything here . Now you withdrew already, but want to say I find similarities with this photograph and some of your successful Featured Pictures :

Keep on the good job ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination won't make it anyway. PumpkinSky talk 13:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 16:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kitchen garden on a Mekong bank.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 14:52:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Background is unsharp but ... it's a long way off and not the subject, which is sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition just isn't doing it for me. Everything interesting is off to the side. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not remarkable. Composition has problems with subject in poor location and eye drawn to twig in middle of empty water. -- Colin (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Per King of Hearts, and lack of supports -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nyctanassa violacea in La Manzanilla.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 01:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A little noisy all over. Was it darker than it looks (hence the high ISO)? Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cloudy day... so the high ISO is because a) I want some depth of field, the birds are very jittery, and although I try to focus in the eye, they move, so it is at least f8. and b) Because I am shooting at anything that appears, some fast, some slow birds, I want to somewhat freeze action. So it is a compromise between quality and technical necessity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
regretful oppose I think the composition and focus are fine, and I like the bug flying over the bird's head, but the feathers just don't look natural. Perhaps too much noise reduction? PumpkinSky talk 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks pretty good to me, and I have an emotional response to the photo because I sympathize with the relaxed-looking bird who's about to be attacked by that mosquito. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ha ha, I was going to suggest to delete that mosquito, but Ikan's reading of the story gives a good reason to keep it :) So, for me it's a beautiful photo and I have no problem with a bit of noise mostly visible in the background (sure it would be better to correct it, though). More than 16 Mpix is quite a good resolution, and the head of the bird is sharp. There are enough interesting details in that image IMO and the composition is fine -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 02:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes

File:Wrecked car at Tuntorp, Brastad 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 21:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice journalistic snapshot, but no wow for me sorry. In terms of composition and execution, I feel that it is not as good as existing car accident photos such as File:Japanese car accident.jpg, one of the first FPs about cars. dllu (t,c) 21:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dllu. --Peulle (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dllu. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be good option, but you should go in front and made quarter view from this side, sun is good.--Mile (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I’ve been away for a while. I don’t think it will matter for this nom, but per Colin's request on another nom, I can at least explain why I took the step to nominate this. Mile’s suggestion with that angle is good but that angle would unfortunately have yielded a very busy background with a railway crossing, an ugly parking lot with cars and an industrial building. This angle gives a clean and calm background and the car's color matches the surroundings, which is pleasant. There is also a nice diagonal line across the photo: lamp – tree branches – hood of the car – shadows in the grass. I also like the juxtaposition of the 'give way' sign and the wreck since that sign is a sort of 'Hey watch out!' sign. Finally, I looked through the 'Damaged automobiles' and 'Crashed vehicles' categories and there is only a handful of photos depicting wrecks in snow, I thought that added a twist to it. So there is a little more thought to this nom than Dllu suggests, but wow is always a gut-feeling. I may not always start every nom with a rationell since it's interesting to see if the photo can stand on its own, but there is always a thought behind why I nominate pics here. --cart-Talk 14:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alright, I think it's time to pull the plug on this and get something else going. --cart-Talk 11:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martinus Rørbye, Portræt af maleren C.A. Lorentzen, 1827, 0218NMK, Nivaagaards Malerisamling.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 14:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Portrait
Info created by Nivaagaards Malerisamling - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed photo with realistic colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. More paintings for FP, please. :) --Peulle (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media#Portrait

File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2018 -- 0417.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 12:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would focus on the lower row only :) - Benh (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Germany

File:Zámek Kačina (by Pudelek).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 12:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little unsharp and the pediment appears overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose essentially per Daniel. Whites are overexposed, which smears the details, but I also don't like the crop on the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Daniel --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ely State Theater.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 08:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United States
Info created & uploaded by User:McGhiever - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The only drawback I see to this photo is that it's pretty small for a new FP. However, it's pretty close to perfect to my eyes and in my opinion does justice to the clean lines of this classic Streamline Moderne movie theater. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome, and easily large enough for this kind of subject. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The third-place finisher in WLM USA 2017, an entry that I strongly supported all through the process as more technically accomplished than the top two. Glad to see it getting the respect it deserves here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the side lighting - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the right side not perfectly vertical, but still acceptable -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The building is leaning in and the resolution low. --XRay ^talk 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per XRay, I expect more than 4 MP resolution for relatively easy to capture images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow on the right spoils it, and the building is obviously in a bad condition, thus no wow for me. Also per XRay and King --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#United States

File:Seattle Great Wheel, Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 16.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 00:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Seattle
Info created by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful colors and shapes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PumpkinSky talk 00:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing! dllu (t,c) 02:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support One wonders how many test shots you made to get the perfect time for having the illuminated spokes filling the wheel and not get all the colors blurry, blending into each other. --cart-Talk 09:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: To be honest, just once, and as it looks fine and I was in a hurry, I moved to the next motif :) Poc o² 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some guys have all the luck... ;) --cart-Talk 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Charles (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 --El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good catch! :) Poc o² 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

;-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent Work! --Gnosis (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite nauseous. ;-) — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Seattle

File:Kifli made with spelt flour (Serbian cuisine).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 15:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
Info Kifli made with spelt flour. My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may not have that cozy homemade feeling, this is more like going to a very good restaurant or cafe and being served this. I wouldn't mind that at all. :) --cart-Talk 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good in thumb and even better at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breakfast time. I am going to eat them all. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't keen on the white tablecloth initiially, but the food is very sharp and excellent DoF. Charles (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Food

File:Sand Hickory buds NBG.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2018 at 03:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Juglandaceae
Sand Hickory buds, Carya pallida, in winter at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 03:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Waiting for springtime. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but the best of the best? No. Specifically, the background is a bit distracting as well as the out of focus foreground. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. Arrangement within the frame not working for me either. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Little boy of Laos laughing.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 22:09:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#portrait
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've said before, I'm not in favour of images of children without consent, whatever the country. Would you like your child/grandchild paraded like this? Charles (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, Charles, though I don't share it. There are many FPs of children on Commons:Featured_pictures/People, including two of mine, and we have at least 10 beautiful portraits of children. Those are as interesting and useful than birds or monkeys on Commons IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: You never got the consent of the boy's parent or guardian? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was shot in a public space. As far as I know, not consent is required for an action related to a picture of a person in a public space in Laos, like in China, see Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements. Only consent is necessary for a commercially use, and there is a Personality Rights template associated to this file, which may be helpful and clear enough as it is. Moreover, I always have the implicit consent of all the people taken in picture that I publish. I'm not a paparazzi. I respect all the people I shoot (even those who laugh and make me laugh because they laugh). This joyful smile was not extracted through money, threat, nor pressure. No, no, it really just comes from the heart. And IMHO parents should be more grateful than rancorous with such a valuable image of their child, all the more so as I nearly always make prints (professionaly made) offered to the family. But anyone here could process differently, I don't mind, that's not the matter. There are hundreds of FPs of people on Commons, see for example this File:Young_Ashaninka_girl_in_an_Apiwtxa_village,_Acre_state,_Brazil.jpg very close to my style, and I assume everybody here is acting like I act. Then, honestly, I don't really understand these insistent questions related to copyrighting aspects. Here this is the FP area, not the OTRS department. So the pictures should be judged for their technical and aesthetical characteristics only. Dealing with other concerns is just out of the subject, I think, and may negatively influence the present votes -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your argument and Support this good composition and sunny smile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile We have internationally a wide range of attitudes towards photographing strangers, and particularly children. Street photography has a long tradition but this ranges from those who take candids by force, walking down the street snapping away, or those who ask for permission with a smile and a nod, or those who think it rude not to first develop a rapor with the subject before even considering taking a photo, to those who would not take any image without permission and consent in writing. In the UK, as a middle-aged man, if I tried to take a photo of a stranger's child, even in a public space where it is legal, I would be in quite serious risk of being physically attacked as some kind of paedophile and having the police called to arrest me. Common policy (COM:IDENT) is pretty much to be permissive about what is acceptable here, within the constraints of law. It is therefore not a guide to "finest" opinions about best practice wrt photographing people. There is a big difference between getting consent to take a photograph for personal use and having consent to publish it widely such as on Commons or Wikipedia. While your offer of a photo in exchange is a nice gesture, I suspect those involved did not know their image might end up in a Wikipedia article with thousands of hits per day. In practice, the "personality rights" that the Commons template mentions only really exist in the US, and there is no such protection in the UK for example, other than basic human right law. It can only be enforced by the subject, and I don't realistically think a boy from a village in Laos is in a position to sue any big corporation using this photo without permission. There is a gaping chasm between what is so awful that Commons agrees to delete it and what allows everyone to feel as warm as the sun in this photo. I think it is therefore fair for reviewers to raise questions about the provenance and ethics of an image, and to oppose if they wish even if no law has been broken or policy infringed. -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because despite the light and the smile it's really just too static a portrait for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light (catch light), smile and stains, are the three reasons for my FPC, but I'm not trying to make you think differently. Just saying. Thanks for the review -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow, sorry. --A.Savin 09:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice portrait. I'm curious if there's context for the marker/mud on his forehead? Perhaps just the general sort of mess children make, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so. He was the youngest among 2 other boys (1), (2) and a girl (3), who seem to have had fun together with a blue marker and the fresh mud of the paddy fields. Though I was not there when this happened, and just found the result "creative". It inspires me the decorative marks some tribes enjoy to make on their face and parts of their body with natural products like colorful pigments -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice enough portrait of a boy, with nice light, but what is so remarkable? This isn't Facebook. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. And common portrait anyways. - Benh (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful portrait. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, per Daniel Case -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:1Mcolors.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 11:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Debitpixie - uploaded by Debitpixie - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Debitpixie}}|]] -- Debitpixie (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Debitpixie (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please fix the <add the category here> -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really representative of the range of colours available in an 8-bit colour system. The rather simple program used to generate this doesn't appear to include the extremes of red, green, blue, black or white. There are 16-million colours possible in 8-bits, and though there are many ways to try to display them all, none are fully satisfactory. Colour is probably best thought of in 3D space. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for "none are fully satisfactory" -- satisfaction is subjective, but have you seen this? images with every colour. Many of the entries in the link have all 16,777,216 colours. As a bonus, all StackOverflow user contributions are licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 so feel free to copy your favourite one over to Commons. dllu (t,c) 02:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dllu, thanks for the link. There are indeed many beautiful ways to present the colours, whether 32,767 or 16,777,216. By "satisfactory" I meant a definitive or standard representation that had high educational value. A rainbow can display the pure spectrum of colour, and we can show 256 shades of red, green or blue pure colours, but there isn't any standard way I know of to describe the mix in a 2D form. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dobrota, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 11.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 13:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Montenegro
Info View of the town of Dobrota, a location of about 8,000 inhabitants in the Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. All by me, Poc o² 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull lighting, and feels a bit too much like a holiday shot anyone would take, sorry. - Benh (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your appreciation, once more, Benh (I talk about the comment, not about the vote) --Poc o² 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not dull but misty, and very well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See no mist here. But a picture is worth a thousand words... [3]. We're far from that here. - Benh (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course different degrees of mist. Most of the mist in this picture is not in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what you are talking about, but guess you refer to the low clouds. No. The light just renders uniform and dull on the subject itself. But anyways, we're mostly fighting about words. - Benh (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No fight here. Fog is just clouds on the surface. When it becomes no longer mist (=fog, IMO) is a judgment call. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not very exciting; the light is not the best, there is no reflection in the water to help either.--Peulle (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reflexion? I'm speechless --Poc o² 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he talks about the "specular" bright reflections? - Benh (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I mean that the relection is not good enough to provide any extra wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like light and reflections. IMO FP. Only a minor problem: The waste in the water, especially the green spot at the right. --XRay ^talk 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
XRay: Done, thanks, Poc o² 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see lots of reflexion on the water surface. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle; it also seems a bit soft. I wonder how this would look in bright sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 06:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar de Pointe Oilletta in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Zaaddozen van alpenflora langs bergpad in dichte mist boven Lac du Joux (1930m) 08.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 05:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Chamerion angustifolium.
Info Rain and mist give this plant in decline a new dimension. Plant photographed on a mountain slope above Lac du Joux (1930m) in Valle d'Aosta (Italy). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 14:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not keen on the busy background - Benh (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced, either. Detail is good, but lighting/background is not at FP level and the motif itself is not so wowing that compensates that. --Poc o² 08:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Woerth Teixlbucht Sueduferstrasse 197 Villa Fichteneck NW-Ansicht 19042017 7776.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 03:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- I love this! The villa is very sharp, the somewhat overcast sky casts a great soft gentle light over the earth tones in the villa, there is a variety of lovely greens, and the two ridges form a nice V-shaped setting for the villa. PumpkinSky talk 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sense of the building's siting and context. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Pumpkin and Daniel. HalfGig talk 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Total Solar Eclipse 8-21-17.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 06:07:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info The total solar eclipse of August 2017, viewed from Wyoming, USA. Created and uploaded by Msadler13, nominated by Rhododendrites. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Copying the file's description here, since it describes how the image was created: "Total solar eclipse image taken through Takahashi FS152 with a f6 focal reducer and a Canon 5D MarkIV, exposure bracketing was used in seven steps from 1/2 sec to 1/8000 sec. Image was processed in Photomatix 6 and Photoshop CC 2017."
Support This was one of the winners of the Wiki Science Competition in the United States. (Disclosure: I was on the local jury, though do not have any connection to the files/uploaders). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support just wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen pink flares before. Artificial colouring? Charles (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I am a bit curious about how they got the craters on the moon visible, I haven't seen that in an eclipse photo before, but I AGF for good equipment and knowhow with the exposure bracketing. Btw, this VI also has pink flares (NASA too and here), so maybe not so uncommon. --cart-Talk 09:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hint of of those flares/prominences in the picture I took; in some of the other ones from that sequence you can see a bit more. They were there (although of course you couldn't see them with the unaided eye). Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can clearly see the pink tint in the area of the flares in Daniel's photo. I think that settles that the flares were not colored in an artificial way. --cart-Talk 15:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, found it! The pink thing is called the sun's Chromosphere and good ol' WP decribes it as only visible during a total eclipse. Also this. --cart-Talk 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks all. Yes they really are pink. Weird. Charles (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support PumpkinSky talk 11:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've put this up at QIC. PumpkinSky talk 11:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing ... looks like an etching or something. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely impressing! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 06:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support mega wow ! - Benh (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Cettarames (ship, 1980) cf06.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 20:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, the composition is doing nothing for me except putting the prow of that ship uncomfortably in my face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know; for some reason I don't mind the crops. Maybe it's the weathered paint and the sunlight reflected from the waves ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the crop and composition. Technical quality is good, though. dllu (t,c) 03:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 21:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2018 -- 0380.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 17:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful, excellent composition -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balanced composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought that was a herd of deer at first, but I don't see the antlers. Are those goats? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately too much of the bottom is in shadow for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit ordinary in my opinion - Benh (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but a bit too unsharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good nature shot, but there are so many of these on Commons that it would need something extra special to earn the title 'one of the best images on Commons'.--Peulle (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snapshot? Please explain. --XRay ^talk 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WOW is surrounded by too much unextraordinary and poorly lit landscape. FP is about a great thumbnail first.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a nice scene, to be sure, but I agree with some of the people above in that the parts that would add "wow" aren't quite central/detailed enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granite stairs in Stångehuvud reserve.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 18:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info If you see a statue standing on a base of glittering granite anywhere in Europe, it is most likely from the Lysekil part of the coastline. The downside of living on this granite, is that everything glitters and you always get these little white glints in photos. These are some stairs in one of the old quarries, now nature reserve. Shooting it is like shooting a Broadway show with sequins everywhere! Those white dots are not lost pixels, you need sunglasses to look at the ground too when you visit this place. All by me, -- cart-Talk 18:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 18:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. - Benh (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much of a wow for me. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice texture, color and idea overall but it just seems too busy. Maybe taking a picture of a smaller area would work better. Also, there's a little CA left where the rocks meet the sky. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination time to pull the plug in this. Thank you for votes and comments, always appreciated. --cart-Talk 21:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virginia Beach City Hall 2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2018 at 03:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United_States
Virginia Beach City Hall during Blue Hour. PumpkinSky talk 03:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blue hour underlines the beauty of the architecture of the great building. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but there's some degree of perspective distortion. The image is also not really centered. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin wrt centring and perspective. Also the image is lacking contrast and much of the facade in the dark. It is rather noisy which I wouldn't expect for ISO 64 so it appears the image was heavily underexposed (to retain highlights in the lamps) and then exposure raised in post. These Nikon sensors might be good, but that's not the optimal technique for architecture seen at FP. Also an image of a wide building like this is asking for a stitched panorama. Taking it with one frame means the edges of the building are soft where the lens is weaker. Our FPs of such a blue-hour architecture is typically multi-exposure multi-frame stitch HDR. The result is a noise-free image with fantastic detail of each brick and a better handling of the dynamic range of tones. For multi-frame stitch without HDR, have a look at Hugin, which is free. If you want HDR, then I recommend PtGui. Photoshop is ok at stitching landscapes but really doesn't have the control needed for architecture to FP level. -- Colin (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and I would also like more generous crops on both sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aftermath of January 2018 North American blizzard 14.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 15:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Pyrus pyrifolia branches, Asian Pear, Shinko cultivar, in blizzard aftermath. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very genuine composition with pastel colors. I do enjoy this image quite a lot. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Per Johann. In addition, the main branches are on the rule of thirds line and very sharp. This almost looks like it was taken looking up to the sky but I'm pretty sure it was taken looking into the fallen snow. HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Sorry, post-closing detected invalid vote per this discussion. Outcome will be altered to not featured. --cart-Talk 13:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Delicate, with what feels to me like a Japanese aesthetic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. What do we see in the background? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. I presume the background is a wall? Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors and the double textures make the image. Suggestion: I think I would crop just a sliver of the bottom to not get that last ice blob cut. Just the branch makes for a cleaner finish. See note. Or perhaps clone out the blob. --cart-Talk 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Johann Jaritz, HalfGig, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, and Daniel Case: @W.carter: All, thanks for the supports! So that everyone knows, the background is not a wall. HalfGig was on the right track, it's fallen snow on the ground. These are the low branches on an Asian Pear tree. The camera was on a tripod and aimed downward at a sharp angle. Cart, I will look at your suggestions. PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: I tried to clone it, but since the ice is also over the twig, it still looked weird. So I went with the small crop. I agree it looks better. Thanks! PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 13:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruden Pfarrkirche hl Maria Magdalena 18082015 6716.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 08:48:58 (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) 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful church, and I find that the pattern of clouds helps the feeling of upward movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Ikan PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find impressive the details of the roof --Harlock81 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support great sky and lighting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support huge tower for a small church :-)--Ermell (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Themar Kloster Veßra chapel P3RM1917.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 07:56:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I'd remove the contrail --Llez (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If it's up to me, don't remove the contrail. I feel that the near-parallelism of the contrail with the arrow on the weathervane is a really cool part of the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Les Aresquiers, Frontignan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 20:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful atmosphere and mood, and nice detail to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel and I love the bursting rays going from the sky bottom to the top. PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just wished you had an alternative taken with a wide angle (maybe you do?), but this is personal taste :) - Benh (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not, I have some variant compositions taken with the same lens but nothing significant. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France

File:Peterborough Cathedral Central Tower Ceiling.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:08:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good balance in the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very sharp picture and very interesting geometric figure, but it's a pity that the upper and lower vertices are missing from the field of view. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Look at those funny faces on the ceiling! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 01:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the standard for tower ceilings high at FP and this is not square nor complete. See File:Peterborough Cathedral tower ceiling.jpg which has poorer quality but does at least capture the tower and ceiling. -- Colin (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Poor crop. Benh (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. dllu (t,c) 03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nonetheless, symmetry is there. I like it --A.Savin 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The symmetry and detail works for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Harlock81 PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:ReichstagSala.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Government of Germany [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by FEDARO - uploaded by FEDARO - nominated by FEDARO -- fedaro (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Educationally valuable. Taivo (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted and suboptimal composition (e.g. bottom is cut off at a weird place). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of, a very unbalanced composition which is not a pleasure to look to --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. You may find it interesting and perhaps useful to look at this Featured Picture of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 22:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maroon Bells (11678).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 00:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Maroon Bells area of Colorado. all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely stunning. PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeah, really excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The green CA halos at the tree tops on the left should be removed. Otherwise good.--Ermell (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: Thanks for pointing that out. I think I've addressed it. While I had it open I also went through the rest of the image to remove flecks of CA. I think it's better now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Green CA yes, in full size, very discreet. Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 21:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#United States of America

File:Field Bindweed in Brodalen.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 11:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Convolvulaceae
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 11:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and nice. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful flower, but the background is overly busy and the light too harsh for FP IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the colors pale, as if the flowers were overexposed. If not, then the contrasts are harsh and the light too strong. The central flower is sharp, but the second one not so interesting and there is like purple CA on it -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case & Basile Morin, Just for info: These flowers are very pale in color, so that part is accurate. The current FP is almost white and has not as much detail in the petal as this, please compare. It was a hand-held shot so no chance of focus stacking. I had to back away a couple of meters to get the DoF deep enough to cover the whole flower and maybe the bud. The side view if the third flower was just bonus, but I found it nice that there could at least show an outline of what the flowers looked like from the side. The mishmash collection of other plants is just how these flowers grow, climbing on other plants, so I think that is an appropriate depiction. The light is very bright, high summer, but that made it possible to see the fine silk sheen of the flower, something normally lost in other photos of these plants. I have washed away the CA in Lightroom, so the slight purple sheen is probably some other color thing. --cart-Talk 12:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: , sorry for the late answer, for a mysterious reason I got only one of your 2 pings yesterday. So, I had a look on the other FP you point out and see big differences between both. Sure the quality is not the same and this very old FPC from 2007 was of quite low resolution compared to that new one. But the required standards were certainly not as high at this time, and I'm not sure the picture would got the same supports today. However, the lighting was good, and as indicated on the reviews Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Convolvulus_arvenvis_with_mites.jpg the mites on the photo give something special, rather original. For me, the main problem in this FPC really is the light. At noon, the pooring sun hits like a hammer and of course it's visible. Compare to this File:Convolvulus_arvensis_11.jpg for example. Or simply compare to your last FPC set, which was excellent Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Development_of_hogweed_bud with 3 beautiful specimen harmoniously highlighted and all of them shot after 4pm. The problem is not that this picture was hand-held, but really that the light kills it. Maybe another RAW treatment with lower exposition could improve, but not sure. For this kind of subject, the lighting is very important. Flowers like insects are at their best appearance with a grazing light, early morning or late afternoon. The leaves with such radical contrasts are also not very delicate and attractive IMO. Thus, I agree concerning the sharpness and the fine details of the main flower, certainly valuable, but the big white in the eyes doesn't make the whole outstanding, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, thanks you for taking the time to answer even though I had already pull the nom. I will see what tricks I can do with this and if oppinions can change then. If not, it's not the end of the world. :) I sometimes think we Northerners who live in darkness for such long time each year are a bit too fond of strong sunlight and see a wow in that itself. A bientôt! --cart-Talk 11:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose harsh light - Benh (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I think I'll withdraw this, rework the light in the photo and start with a fresh nom after that. I'm not giving up just yet on this, since I'm quite fond of it. Thanks all for your comments. BRB! :) --cart-Talk 23:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tammerkoski (22286032958).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2018 at 09:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by kooikkari - uploaded by Manelolo - nominated by Manelolo -- Manelolo (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Manelolo (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distorsion. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose serious distortion issues. PumpkinSky talk 11:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. It's even visible at thumbnail level.--Peulle (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 18:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brooklyn Bridge August 2017.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 08:40:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Brooklyn Bridge, view towards Manhattan. Created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture and interesting angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Basile. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile, also very nice motion. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one of these iconic NY photos with steel beams, rivets and skyline, still they get me every time. --cart-Talk 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Cart. PumpkinSky talk 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the converging lines, the composition and the lighting. Something I could hang up on a wall at home. - Benh (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool. At first, I thought it looked like it had glass buildings on the sides, giving off reflections. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Works for me only because of the use of the far arch as a focal point and the blurring of the cars, something you usually don't see in this type of image of the bridge. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job. I've stood in that spot a few dozen times, but every time I've had my camera with me it's either oppressively crowded or bad lighting. It's an impressive structure but can be surprisingly difficult to get a technically good shot of while you're on it. I happen to look through a lot of pictures of the bridge last week, putting together a slideshow for the NYC Wikipedia Day event, and was torn between this one and this other one of yours. Ultimately, I went with the latter, but I think this is a good FP candidate. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 17:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Houtzagerij Sagi Tschiertschen 06.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects # Switserland Sawing machine, detail.
Info Water-powered Sawmill, Sagi Tschiertschen. Built c 1920. sawing machine. Detail. The color and atmosphere of this photo evokes memory memories from the fifties of the last century. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I saw the thumbnail, I didn't expect to support this picture, but at full screen, it's a really good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lines intersecting with crop in just the right way makes it work very well. --cart-Talk 10:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two other images of the same series of this sawmill are already featured. I see no need to have one more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image. The other two images Uoaei1 refers to are of totally different parts of the sawmill. Saying this one can't be an FP is like saying "we have two FPs of different parts of this same French church, so we can't have another". I have no problem with this current FPC being an FP at all. It's an excellent image and deserves FP status. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. It isn't like "different parts of the same church". It's the same saw, just from different angles. So it is more like different views of the alter, taken on the same day with the same light and same processing. I also don't think it is fair-play to nominate in this way without declaring the previous noms. FP is about "finest", which includes choosing from one's own shots of the same object. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of those pics where I think the perspective (vanishing points) doesn't fit. And not sure what is so remarkable about it to start with. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan and Cart HalfGig talk 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin. The composition isn't bad but it is pretty typical and unremarkable. dllu (t,c) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this picture awesome. The composition is excellent, and I love the mirror effect of the saw -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can appreciate not wanting to promote another image of the same object, but it seems sufficiently different to me and if we were only allowed two of the subject, this would be one of the two. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Machines

File:Vista de Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 07-08 HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 20:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Cityscape of Seattle seen from after sunset from 701 on 5th Avenue. All by me, Poc o² 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - A bit more noisy than the very best panorama pics, but I think that if this is the best quality you can get, it's sufficient, and the view is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like night cityscapes. Just curious: Since Ikan Kekek pointed out noise, why not drop the ISO from 320 to 100 to reduce noise and make the exposure time longer to accentuate the car trails? For what it's worth, I don't think the noise is a big deal at all. Other minor technical issues include: mountain ridges on the left have a halo above them, probably due to using the "clarity" or "detail" slider in Lightroom; the logos of the Hilton and Sheraton hotels on the bottom right appear doubled (reflections on glass, perhaps?) dllu (t,c) 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dllu: That's what I would have probably done under normal conditions, using an ISO 100 but the shots from the oberservation deck until then had been blurry. As it was a bit windy I believe that the building kept moving, I didn't realize it but the camera did. That's why I shortened the exposure time. I have uploaded a new version adressing the other issues you mentioned Poc o² 19:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite noisy and a bit blurry in the details. --Granada (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Was thinking the same as dllu (but it's an oppose, sorry ;) ). A bit dark for a 2018 night shot also. - Benh (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think this is quite FP level in terms of detail retained. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Mekong beach in Si Phan Don.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 03:05:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sky, cool composition with the bulbous sand formation extending towards us; it's like a tongue. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the footprints in the sand that show up at full-size. Whose were they? Yours? Someone else involved in pushing the boat offshore? Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly mine. Though my shoes here are hidden behind the stack of branches -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Laos

File:Recology Lodal Garbage Truck 14425 in San Francisco.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 02:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Trucks and buses
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info original background looks like File:Recology Lodal Garbage Truck 14425 in San Francisco (unprocessed).jpg. dllu (t,c) 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 02:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the picture much better with the original background. Would you consider offering that (if there's one that's not small) as an alternate? This version seems antiseptic to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've uploaded it. Feel free to add it as an alternate to this nomination. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with "antiseptic" images for a project that's about encyclopedic images. dllu (t,c) 06:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think FPC is about encyclopedic images; that's more VIC's brief. But how do I add an alt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I wish the FP project was about encyclopaedic images, but it isn't. I'm not in favour of artifical backgrounds for this sort of image. Charles (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FP is not only about "high artistic merit", but also about "high illustrative merit". What this image may lack in artistic merit, I hope it makes up for it in illustrative merit. Besides, COM:SCOPE says that Wikimedia Commons is about educational images, "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". To me, it is much more clear and informative to see the garbage truck that has been separated from its cluttered background. I can see this type of image being useful in educational media such as children's books and textbooks. dllu (t,c) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd put it like this: FP is (supposed to be) about images that make you go "wow!" in some kind of way. Where that "wow" comes from doesn't really matter, and there are many different ways of evoking it. It can come from the subject (like something very old or rare), technical execution (like an incredibly well done macro shot of a boring object), artistic merit or a combination of these factors. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info I'm not sure about the background yet in terms of FPC. But in any case I think it would make an excellent VIC, so I've gone ahead and nominated it there (→ nomination subpage). --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm normally not a huge fan of background replacements at FPC, but I think in this case it not only works but also raises the bar for similar works to come. The masking is very well done even when pixel-peeping, and so is the artificial shadow beneath the truck. The flat lighting that makes the original photograph a bit boring-looking is perfect for this almost drawing-like illustrative image. And finally, yes, I am actually "wow"-ed by this transformation of a meh photograph into a very educative illustration. --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I spent 2 hours removing the background, paying particular attention to the glass windows and the numerous "holes" in the middle of the truck. dllu (t,c) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support More or less per El Grafo. I also like that looking at it at thumb, I get the toy truck feeling. --cart-Talk 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For some reason, I prefer the composition on the original, where the truck lies along the abscissa and the verticals are slanted. Not a huge fan of the background replacement either. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of alt, per my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support - I prefer this because it gives the photo a sense of place, as this looks like Downtown San Francisco to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky, Johann Jaritz, Daniel Case, Charles, El Grafo, Yann, Ryan Hodnett, cart, Benh: At dllu's suggestion, I have put up an alt. I know some of you prefer the version on a white background, but it's only fair to ping everyone who voted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support a common shot, byt I find it disorienting and interesting that this is levelled after the truck itself and not the context - Benh (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for the ping. As pointed out above, I find this a bit meh over all and I don't like the tilt. --El Grafo (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nope, this has no wow at all for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 10:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactlly per the other opposers aabove. --Cayambe (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted. Yann (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Trucks and buses

The chosen alternative is: File:Recology Lodal Garbage Truck 14425 in San Francisco.jpg

File:White-tailed eagle LGphoto.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 15:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by User:LG Nyqvist - uploaded by User:LG Nyqvist - nominated by User:LG Nyqvist -- LG Nyqvist (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LG Nyqvist (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- FredN (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." So far you've only made 43 edits. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 17:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good level of detail.--Peulle (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good but the poor things look like they could use some heating. ;-) PumpkinSky talk 00:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, I think it's neat that the tracking bands on their legs are visible. PumpkinSky talk 02:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info @LG Nyqvist: , I've tweaked the file description and added both the Latin name and species category. If that's not okay or I got something wrong, please change it. PumpkinSky talk 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not at all PumpkinSky Lg Nyqvist (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all of the above, and it's admirable you got this photo in a such a heavy snowstorm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The snow really makes this. Beautiful shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would rework on demosaicing or NRing it, but quite amazing - Benh (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good shot, but oversharpened IMO --Llez (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Richard [®] 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Pinus heldreichii Den Ouden.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 21:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - uploaded by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A solid piece of work. --Peulle (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful and very interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating image. Could someone give a little more explanation about what exactly we're looking at beyond what's in the description? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info It's basically a section of a plant, designed to be seen in microscopes, with coloured dyes designed to make the different tissues stand out more. Very instructive and typical of something we teachers use in class, as well as in publications.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I've added a bunch of image notes, linking the most important features to their articles on Wikipedia. --El Grafo (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although it's a quite scientific-oriented shot, you could frame it and put it in your living room. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this a section through a needle of the tree rather than through the stem, as suggested above? A scale is missing. Annotations would be welcome (they could be added to a derived version of the image). --Cayambe (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cayambe: I was looking for an explanation of which part of the plant we're looking at here and didn't find any in the description. After taking a closer look, I'm pretty sure that information was lost in translation and what we're looking at is indeed a cross-section of a needle (Russian хвоинки = needles). --El Grafo (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El Grafo, for the explanation. You are right, it is a cross-section through a needle. --Cayambe (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it is a needle, see here --Llez (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was some stained-glass abstract when I first saw it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful to look at, technically well done and informative as well (after some adjustments) – what more could you ask for? --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! Richard [®] 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Pied bushchat (Saxicola caprata bicolor) female.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 09:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I've come back to this one probably 6 times in the last couple days. Sorry to say, I think I'm falling on the other side of the crowd on this one (I don't think it'll matter, though). A great image, but seems more of a VI than FPC to me. In other words, for an animal which is not itself inherently "wow," I would expect to see an unusual pose/action/lighting, or a bit sharper edges/feet. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Voltmetro 17:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Pashupatinath Temple cremations on the Bagmati River.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 06:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting document --Neptuul (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too many technical issues for FP, IMO, and too much blown light. Also, please fix the dust spots (at least 2 a bit off the left side toward the top and one in the upper right corner). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Done Thank you for your review. Please review once again.-- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, though still not wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Leaving the technical issues aside, the image is just too busy. Too many things—the lights, the buildings—are competing to try to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May not be FP, but impressive picture nonetheless. Yann (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Voltmetro 17:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern plains grey langur (Semnopithecus dussumieri) female head.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 21:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much chroma noise and the level of detail is insufficient for such a portrait image, IMO. --Peulle (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Face is sharp enough for me (love the chagrined expression) and I don't really see much in the way of chroma noise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the reflections in his eyes. No forest, I'm afraid.--Ermell (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Forest. All natural and wild. 90 seconds earlier I photographed the same lady (see link) before asking my driver to reposition the jeep for a close up session. Charles (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like a city skyline to me. He might be happier in the forest.--Ermell (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support We shouldn't read human emotions into animal faces, but with that expression, this could be one of the characters in some 'Planet of the Apes' movie. --cart-Talk 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide 009.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2018 at 06:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural # Netherlands Pinus sylvestris.
Info Walk across the Hulshorsterzand/ Hulshorsterheide. Strangely shaped Pinus sylvestris greets the walker. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, but it doesn't evoke the kind of feeling that would make me go "wow!". As a subject, it's just not that special.--Peulle (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love the subject (the evergreen with needles only on the right), but I think a much closer crop would help the composition considerably. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't like the scene. The tree is not centered in the photo, the forest in the background is too far, the sky quite colourless. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I can see what you might have been thinking but it just didn't come across. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Karelj (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 04:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support -- like this better but still support the first one too. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Pumpkin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 04:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-135 final flyaround of ISS 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 17:02:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info Fly-around of the International Space Station by the Space Shuttle on its final mission. Created by NASA - uploaded by Leebrandoncremer - nominated by Craigboy -- Craigboy (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Craigboy (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 02:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can almost hear the Deep Space Nine theme music ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Richard [®] 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Thirty-five rowers on a long racing pirogue in Laos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 14:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Team_sports
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This made me smile. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, it's a pleasure to look to this photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Terrific. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support STROOOKE! STROOOOKE! Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 07:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Richard [®] 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Team_sports

File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland zw.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 16:57:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # The Netherlands
Info Threatening clouds above a beautifully situated moorland lake. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think this is a very fine image. I especially love all the varied tones in the sky. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See no reason for B&W here. It doesn't look realistic to me, and even if intended that way, not pleasing to my eyes. - Benh (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. I feel the b/w doesn't add anything to this image, it detracts from it. --Peulle (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very convincing to me. I'm just enjoying this picture, not imagining what it would look like as a color photo, which IMO it doesn't need to be. It works as itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't find the clouds very threatening in this or the original color photo. It looks like a nice but unremarkable day by the lake. Cropping away a bit of the bottom and right to center it, and turning up the drama in the B&W could work though. Example. --cart-Talk 14:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment : Thank you for your comments and advice. Alternative version posted.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that I've seen the color version, I prefer the black & white version, either this way or in cart's suggested edit. The color version is more ordinary-looking to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as below: not really wowed --El Grafo (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support I think this is more balanced and intense. Also 'pinging' previous voters to let them know the alt exists: PumpkinSky, Benh, Basotxerri, Peulle, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz. --cart-Talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree, this one is better. PumpkinSky talk 17:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@U and PumpkinSky: , Benh, Basotxerri, Peulle, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz Alternative versie; File:Wijnjeterper Schar, Natura 2000-gebied provincie Friesland zw b.jpg placed.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Pumpkin. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but to me it only got worse... looks like the sky was artificially darkened, making the whole set even less natural IMO. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this better as b/w. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More dramatic, but I'm sympathetic to Benh's argument. What would the counterargument be to the charge of artificial darkening? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The human eye is capable of detecting a wider range of high-low lightings ("dynamic range") than the sensor of a camera. The other argument is that a B&W conversion is already a step off from reality and thus B&W permits by a somewhat exaggerate use of higher contrasts and selective highlighting and moving to shadows (including "dodge and burn") than a colour image. You may or may not agree but that's the essence of B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll Support this version, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose please give me a valid reason for a bw nature image! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really? Because b&w is a perfectly valid type of photography. If you don't like the photo, fine, but automatically opposing based on the lack of color is not reasonable, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @Alchemist-hp: Info Ikan Kekek Why a B&W nature photo? One name: Ansel Adams. Agree with Ikan, if you don't like the photo fine, but to flat out oppose because it's B&W is not a valid oppose IMHO. PumpkinSky talk 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Benh - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm more than fine with b&w for landscapes and I do like this one better than the alternative, but I'm missing something that would me go "wow!" here. --El Grafo (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purple Orchid NBG.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 03:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
Purple Orchid, Orchidaceae, in the Tropical Greenhouse, Norfolk Botanical Garden, Norfolk, Virginia. I cropped it this way because I like the way it draws your eyes to the interesting center. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 03:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colors. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... but the flower is not in focus. Charles (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the claimed focus stacking, not much is in focus, and I'm not seeing any advantage to be gained for this composition to not having the flower in focus -- the eye is drawn to the throat of the flower which might have lovely patterns if we could see them sharply. The whole flower is not in the frame (and I can't see any artistic reason for the crop). Also at FP we expect the flower to be identified, not just "purple orchid" and categorised more specifically than to Category:Orchidaceae, one of the largest families of flowering plants with 28,000 species. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 12:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xerophytes NBG.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 03:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America
Xerophytes, plants that need little water, on the log just below the spinning fan in the Tropical Greenhouse, Norfolk Botanical Garden, Norfolk, Virginia. PumpkinSky talk 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming greenhouse and great colors. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this picture would benefit from a small horizontal rotation, to get the roof more in the axis -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but with so much going on in the photo, the basic lines of things like the roof window and table below, should be as centered and perspective adjusted as possible otherwise it gives an impression of randomness. It is fixable, but it needs a lot of work. --cart-Talk 12:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful enough image but not making me go wow. Btw the category is wrong. -- Colin (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 12:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christmas table (Serbian cuisine).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 11:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food and drink
Info Christmas table (part of Serbian cuisine). My shot.--Mile (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shadows may not be entirely perfect (personal opinion) but I can't stop admiring this. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But why the glasses are empty?--Claus 16:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Claus I have that option too, with candle lighted, but i wasnt happy with positions, and yellow light of candle (since tones are more colder here and yellow is warm ligth). But, you gave me idea for Krismas dinner. --Mile (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite good. == Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good but the perspective warp is too much for me.--Peulle (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To me, that's a fair comment. It does look like it's falling over on both sides, though my eye and brain accept that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Address is missing. ;) --Yann (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although it would be nice if I weren't concerned about the strudel falling off the edge of the table . Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this -- just wish the crop on the left and bottom weren't quite as tight. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A beautiful photo. But I have the feeling that the dishes can slide off the table.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only glass of good beer is missing.:-) --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karelj Švejk a pivičko. --Mile (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Food and drink

File:Fisht Stadium in January 2018.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2018 at 16:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info: Fisht Olympic Stadium in Sochi, Russia. This photo was taken in January 2018. Created by me - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Voltmetro 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Voltmetro 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop, heavy blue CAs everywhere and in general low quality --Llez (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose + unsharp PumpkinSky talk 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This view might make an FP one day, but not with this unsharpness, CA and bad framing. Daniel Case (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the previous comments. This is not a QI. See Commons:Quality_images_candidates -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Cool motif but low-quality photo per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is of too low technical quality to feature.--Peulle (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships - Krylatskoye Rowing Canal panorama (2014-08-08).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2018 at 16:49:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info: 2014 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships. Krylatskoye Rowing Canal on August 8, 2014 (during 2014 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships); this panorama was created by me - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Voltmetro 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Voltmetro 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of perspective distorsion, heavy colour noise and insufficient overall quality. A mobile phone ist not an equipment for FP --Llez (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Voltmetro, he's right. The FP standards are really high and smart phones simply don't produce photos with the technical quality to meet those standards. PumpkinSky talk 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An enormous perspective distortion and I don't think this add anything to the quality --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llez and everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 above comments. --Peulle (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rifugio Friedrich August - Sleigh.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 21:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look at it standing up, and you'll want to catch your balance. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Ullibarrí-Gamboa - Punta de San Juan -BT- 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 21:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this photo does not have anything special for me, no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. There was potential here, but it didn't pan out. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of those scenes that seems great in reality but don't quite translate into a photo. (Btw, great minds... I don't consider that one FPC material either.) --cart-Talk 12:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Light is too dull for me to be wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose B&W picture with no wow. -- Pofka (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow dragon fruit with spoon (50847s).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 01:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info focus stack of 10 images (maybe overkill, but I like the result). all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The multiple shadow is a bit distracting, and there's not enough contrast between the subject and the background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded - @King of Hearts: The lack of contrast in certain spots around the edges of the fruit bugged me, too, actually. I've gone ahead and made a minor adjustment to sharpen that edge/increase the contrast. Also made a teensy color temperature adjustment per Daniel Case. That being said, if the shadows are the deal-breaker, I don't expect this will change your mind. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wish the light had been cooler, but other than that ... Daniel Case (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stacking's okay, but the shadows shouldn't be there in a studio shot.--Ermell (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: Fair enough, though to be clear, it's just a tripod next to a fruit sitting on a bare kitchen counter shot. I didn't set up any lighting. I suppose it's true that it would be better if it were a studio shot, with some control over the lighting/shadows... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhod, just to clarify, any photography that is set up indoors under some sort of controlled circumstances, is usually called "a studio shot" regardless of the equipment used. This photo is called a studio shot even if it was done just by placing the camera on a tripod next to the work table in my kitchen with only the lamp over the sink as light. :) --cart-Talk 22:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Food photo must have natural light. If you are afraid of shadows do top-down shot. --Mile (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I'm not really liking the spoon which seems to lack support for its position. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination will try again if I see another yellow one at the store later :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nötsch Saak Friedhof Michorgrab Monumentalwerk Koligs 08052015 3388.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2018 at 07:27:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Ikan PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed, natural colurs --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if the sign could have been moved for the shot. Charles (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sign is problematic, but still I believe it is a FP quality. -- Pofka (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 16:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media#Religion

File:Bamberg Altes Rathaus 17RM1565-PSD.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2018 at 20:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very good composition and beautiful colors but unnatural perspective -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I share this perception. The part of the building on the right looks to me like it's further to the right as it goes up. Do you see what I mean, Ermell? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Ikan Kekek: @Spurzem: The impression is correct but all the houses on the site have become quite crooked over the centuries like this one. --Ermell (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, and Support per others and your explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice angle (very dramatic). Nice light. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --Code (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've been there a couple of times and I can confirm that this is indeed a very crooked building (at least the white part of it). It still doesn't look quite right to me, but that might be due to the need for shooting upwards with a wide angle – you are really limited there in terms of finding a position to shoot from. I don't really like the trees on the left, but I don't think that's enough to spoil the party with an oppose. --El Grafo (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A classic. Well done. --Milseburg (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Fregattfågel Fernando de Noronha.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 16:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by User:LG Nyqvist - uploaded by User:LG Nyqvist - nominated by User:LG Nyqvist -- LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- FredN (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." So far you've only made 43 edits. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Impressive shape. Too bad the focus is not on the head -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The head seems sharp enough for me, but there's a dust spot on the upper right that should be removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have updated the picture without the dustspot... LG Nyqvist (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Moderate Support now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a stunning shot but it's a pity that the focal plane is a bit behind the head which is unsharp. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent composition, very good colors, good sharpness. What more could it be? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri.--Ermell (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice catch - Benh (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Face to face --Llez (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Hey, look at me!" Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Richard [®] 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Pteroglossus torquatus Costa Rica.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2018 at 20:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order : Piciformes (Woodpeckers and relatives)
Info created, uploaded by LG Nyqvist, nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 20:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support When this photo was first nominated, there was a bit of a hickup since it was FPD-ed and it wasn't in original size (now fixed). I think it's a great photo with good ambient light that deserves a real nomination. --cart-Talk 20:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support processing of the picture could be much better (artifacts all over the place where not NRed) but I don't think it detracts unless pixelpeeped - Benh (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone could add some bokeh-related category, please? --Basotxerri (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support This one is B-OK! Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition, colors and bokeh, delightful ! Very nice nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- -donald- (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the bird itself could maybe benefit from a bit dodging/selective brightening, but … wow! --El Grafo (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Richard [®] 18:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bird should be lightened. Charles (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it needs white balance. --Gnosis (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order : Piciformes (Woodpeckers and relatives)

File:Votive altar-MA 6346-IMG 8626-black.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 14:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by Rama - nominated by Yann (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Buddhist votive altar with the historical Buddha in his "celestial body" surrounded by monks and bodhisattva, and on the obverse with Maitreya.
Support Interesting art, very good reproduction. --Yann (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I don't really like images cut-out on black or white in Photoshop. There's too much unnecessary background here too. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be seen dead with Photoshop, this is done entirely with Free software. Rama (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. Not by a long shot.--Peulle (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. There's a really high standard for FP art photos, considering all the photos by museums and Google Art Project, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, as unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кордицепс серо-пепельный - Cordyceps entomorrhiza.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2018 at 21:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created by Alexey Zakharinskij - uploaded by Alexey Zakharinskij - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral may have to come back to this later; for now, I'm having too much trouble getting past the blurriness — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unsharp, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fascinating subject but blurriness and some strange processing artefacts -- haloes on the brighter elements. -- Colin (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurriness and no wow for me—subject doesn't really stand out from everything else. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. -- Pofka (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Göltzschtalbrücke blick nach oben 0582.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2018 at 22:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose While I admit the composition is pretty cool, the image also has a low level of detail that seems to have been washed out - almost as if it has had too much noise reduction.--Peulle (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have been thinking about it for a while. It's nice, but it's off enough (vertically and horizontally) that it kills it in my view. - Benh (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Benh is right, is it possible to re-shot the scene taking care of the symmetry, that would be a FP, definitely Poc o² 13:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my opinion, this doesn't necessarily have to be symmetrical, which is very difficult to achieve during recording, although I also appreciate symmetry as a design element.

"Symmetry is the aesthetics of the stupid" Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.--Ermell (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, mind your manners. Using this roundabout way to imply that other users are stupid, is not good. --cart-Talk 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know it's not meant that way, but if you really want to, you can understand it that way. Thank you for the friendly admonition. No offence.--Ermell (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the quote to wikiquote:Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, though it is disputed. dllu (t,c) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The corbels at left and right are, per Peulle, unsharp; they should not be. Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Ludwig would have had second thoughts after looking at this picture in portrait. - Benh (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<span style="{{Transform-rotate|90}}; margin:50px 0px">[[File:Göltzschtalbrücke blick nach oben 0582.jpg|300px]]</span>

Info Converting diplayed file to text since it might be what's blocking the bot. --cart-Talk 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not only is it not well centered, the periphery of the image is not sufficiently sharp. dllu (t,c) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive to me --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that everything doesn't have to be centered all the time, but when you do something off-center, it is usually better to go all the way and create a new interesting perspective. Something like shown in this very crude diagram. Also used in this rather famous photo. --cart-Talk 13:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support an industrial cathedral --Neptuul (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Moving post closing discussion to up here since it seems to be blocking the bot. --cart-Talk 11:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are no alternatives and the vote is 8-4, so the result should be a feature. Apparently, the addition of a different view in a post confused the bot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Yes, I saw that. But if you came here, saw this and had time to write the comment, why didn't you just close the nom yourself? Any experienced user at FPC can close noms. --cart-Talk 10:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never really learned how. I remember there was a thread on the talk page in which you gave the steps, but where can I see a permanently placed set of instructions? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: , we always need people who can help with this never-ending task. The hardest part is now done by the bot, once you have closed one or two, you will see how easy it is though. You don't have to start with the tricky ones, just helping out with the normal 'featured' or 'not featured' is a good step. There is a permanent guide at Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished that link is in the rules section of COM:FPC so no problem finding it. Or you could save a link to my little tutorial in your notebook or something. Here it is: Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 19#Closing FPCs. --cart-Talk 19:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Tagging the rough-legged buzzards' nestling.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 02:01:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Shtirlitz74 - uploaded by Shtirlitz74 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very useful VI, but not the composition/quality for FP. Charles (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom crop is very tight, and the hand dominates too much -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles.--Peulle (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Feels a bit washed out to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HalfGig talk 14:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HalfGig you have to leave a reason for your 'oppose'. Please provide one. --cart-Talk 14:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of all these oppose votes.--Peulle (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 01:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Innenansicht -- 2018 -- 0596-8.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2018 at 17:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted cw, and the cross is quite off-center --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked several horizontal lines. Some looks like tilted CW, some tilted CCW, some are not tilted. Not easy for a historical building. May be the cross isn't centered, may be the position of the camera was shifted. I can't fix this for this photograph. --XRay ^talk 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point mostly concerns the vertical of the central window. Maybe you could optimize. Nevertheless this image is impressive, therefore weak Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Works for me, and a moving crucifix. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me --Llez (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very impressive to start with, but the obstructing parts trigger my oppose - Benh (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppressive view, with a crucifix that may fall on my head. On the aesthetical aspect, this religious object seen from below inspires me an unpleasant feeling of devotion, that may be the subject, but which puts me into an uncomfortable position of subjugation, unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Vista de Puno y el Titicaca, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 64-72 PAN.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 06:46:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Panoramic view of the city of Puno next to the Lake Titicaca, in the Peruvian Andes, not far from Bolivia. Puno is the capital city of the Puno Province and has a population of approx. 150,000. It was established in 1668 by the Spanish nobleman and viceroy Pedro Antonio Fernández de Castro. The lake is, by volume of water, the largest in South America and, with a surface elevation of 3,812 metres (12,507 ft), it's considered the highest navigable lake in the world. The lake has a max. lenght of 190 kilometres (120 mi) and width of 80 kilometres (50 mi) and a surface of 8,372 square kilometres (3,232 sq mi), whereas the water volume is 893 cubic kilometres (214 cu mi) with a max. depth of 281 metres (922 ft) and an average depth of 107 metres (351 ft). Poc o² 06:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Amazing panoramic view. --Gnosis (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gnosis. Most impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, very nice! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressively large and detailed. How many pictures are there? The second-to-last picture seems a bit less sharp than the others (see note). Maybe you can exchange it. --Milseburg (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Milseburg: You can always figure out the amount of frames out of the image title, in this case I used 9 frames. I cannot easily swap that frame as I don't have a similar one, but I can try to stitch something out of series with different focal length I took from that spot. I don't believe though that I can look into that until Saturday. --Poc o² 20:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry I have to oppose for now. It´s very good but not perfect. The mentioned transition is too obvious for me. It doesn't matter anyway, except of delaying the promotion a few days. --Milseburg (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding!--Ermell (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 11:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Birefringent Water Ice 5.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 02:42:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena
Info A thin layer of ice placed between polarizing filters, showing off its birefringence. The uploader has been playing with photography set-ups conducive to taking these images, and released one of them on Commons during the Wiki Science Competition. It is below the typical resolution of FPC, but as I understand it that's not an absolute rule when the circumstances of the photograph are non-standard. To me, this is spectacular enough that it's worth considering. Someone else can probably do a better job of explaining the science behind it. Created and uploaded by Tom Wagner, nominated by Rhododendrites. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's going on at the upper right? There's a serious loss of sharpness there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a jpeg. I don't think there are exceptions to the 2 MP rule that are jpeg files. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The only criterion I see is "Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons." So the 2mp rule simply doesn't apply to animations, videos, and SVGs, and there needs to be strong mitigating reasons otherwise (i.e. exceptions). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is certainly beautiful to look at but the image quality is not as good as existing FPs of birefringence, taken with the same technique, such as File:Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner - Black background.jpg. dllu (t,c) 05:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok, maybe FP not quite right for this one. maybe we get a higher resolution image from the uploader sometime :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berkenzwam (Piptoporus betulinus) op afgebroken berkentak in een natuurlijk biotoop 03.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2018 at 09:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Piptoporus betulinus.
Info Birch mushroom (Piptoporus betulinus) on broken birch branch in natural habitat.}} All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Earth tones! Texture! Symmetry! Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent document (should be a VI, too, I would figure) and a very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cannot be natural habitat? This is a cut branch, presumably repositioned by hand. 10:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I respect your opinion. But do not share your opinion. If you look closely at the picture, you can see that the birch branch has been broken off earlier (left end). That the branch has been there for a long time, you can see from the decayed leaf against the birch branch (bottom right). In my opinion everything is in harmony with the environment and nothing has been put in scene!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel HalfGig talk 14:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2018

File:FIS WC NK Ramsau 20161218 DSC 8642.jpg, not featured edit

File:December 25 at 1 am 2017, Québec City Limoilou, Canadá 03.jpg, not featured edit

File:Benasque - Aigualluts - Pico de la Mina 02.jpg, featured edit

File:BennyTrapp Natrix helvetica.jpg, featured edit

File:Fuyu persimmon fruits, one cut open.jpg, featured edit

File:Homless selling flowers in São Paulo downtown.jpg, featured edit

File:Königsberg Burg Südansicht 0499-PSD.jpg, featured edit

File:Pörtschach Promenadenbad Brücke zur Blumeninsel 23122017 2136.jpg, featured edit

File:17-12-14-Flughafen-Madrid-Barajas-RalfR-DSCF1008.jpg, featured edit

File:Eureka Tower (top), Melbourne 2017-10-30.jpg, featured edit

File:Immerged tree in the Mekong with boat.jpg, not featured edit

File:Indian roller (Coracias benghalensis benghalensis).jpg, featured edit

File:Merisk - Eurasian oystercatcher - Haematopus ostralegus (1) copy.jpg, featured edit

File:Papilio machaon maiting.jpg, featured edit

File:1896 BancoEspañolCuba 10pesos.jpg, featured edit

File:Rosa 'Sheila's Perfume' 02.jpg, not featured edit

File:Rakvere ordulinnus - Rakvere castle.jpg, not featured edit

File:Sternbergia lutea showing the different parts of the flower.JPG, not featured edit

File:Catedral de María Reina del Mundo, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-12, DD 61-63 HDR.jpg, featured edit

File:Orisol - Ermita de Santikurutz 02.jpg, not featured edit

File:20171004 UWCL SKN-MCW StPoelten 850 1369.jpg, not featured edit

File:Egunsentia Gaztelugatxen.jpg, not featured edit

File:João Alfredo, Pernambuco, Brazil 06.jpg, not featured edit

File:Forcella del Pana.jpg, featured edit

File:Loojang 05.05.2017 - Sunset 05.05.2017 copy.jpg, not featured edit

File:Fighting white-tailed eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) (2).jpg, featured edit

File:Mekong pirogue at sunset in the 4000 islands.jpg, featured edit

File:Notre Dame HDR.jpg, not featured edit

File:Matador in the Plaza de toros de la Real Maestranza de Caballería in Seville.jpg, featured edit

File:Älvdalens Camping - Grillplats.jpg, featured edit

File:Himmelberg Pfarrkirche hl Martin Grabplatte Balthasar von Pibriach 20062007 133.jpg, not featured edit

File:Camellia japonica NBG.jpg, featured edit

File:Musée Galliera, Paris 21 July 2017.jpg, featured edit

File:LED and USB mini fan.jpg, not featured edit

File:Anfiteatro de Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 49-57 HDR PAN.jpg, featured edit

File:Beschimmelde Nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) tussen afgevallen blad in verval 02.jpg, featured edit

File:Манастир Трескавец IMG 8899.jpg, not featured edit

File:Laughing woman.jpg, not featured edit

File:American Fascism.jpg, not featured edit

File:Kungstorget 8 Lysekil 4 - bw.jpg, not featured edit

File:Along the River 7-119-3.jpg, delisted edit

File:Loojang 08.01.2017 - Sunset 08.01.2017 4.jpg, not featured edit

File:20180105 Men's handball Austria - Czechia Pavel Horák 850 9028.jpg, not featured edit

File:Wernberg Damtschach Schloss Metallbank 06122016 5447.jpg, not featured edit

File:Norderney, Weststrand -- 2016 -- 5285 -- 2.jpg, not featured edit

File:Los Paredones, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 30-35 PAN.JPG, not featured edit

File:Paraje en Salinas de Medinaceli, Soria, España, 2017-05-23, DD 08.jpg, not featured edit

File:L'Air by Aristide Maillol, Jardins du Carrousel, Paris 7 October 2012.jpg, not featured edit

File:Caïn venant de tuer son frère Abel by Henri Vidal, Tuileries Garden, 18 July 2017.jpg, featured edit

File:North window on rear of farmhouse at Kelvin A. Lewis farm in Creeds.jpg, featured edit

File:Oveja islandesa, Grábrók, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 097.JPG, not featured edit

File:KB.Kościół św. Andrzeja w Trzebieszowicach.jpg, featured edit

File:Nine steps stair in Lysekil - bw.jpg, featured edit

File:Gallotia gallito palmae La Palma.jpg, not featured edit

File:Bad Kissingen Foyer Fresko 0417RM0539.jpg, featured edit

File:Bruderwald-Herbst-026375.jpg, featured edit

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië) 15.jpg, featured edit

File:Ypsilon bru rosa (3).jpg, not featured edit

File:Bergtocht van Tschiertschen (1350 meter) via Ruchtobel richting Ochsenalp 09.jpg, not featured edit

File:Athyma nefte from Nagaland.jpg, not featured edit

File:Rose, Sheila's Perfume, バラ, シーラズ パヒューム, (14525862372).jpg, not featured edit

File:South African ostrich in The Kiev Zoo.jpg, not featured edit

File:Linnutee - Milky Way (9) copy.jpg, featured edit

File:New York Botanical Garden October 2016 010.jpg, featured edit

File:20171121 Don Det Laos 3754 DxO.jpg, not featured edit

File:The Rakaposhi peak, 7,788 mt, from Tagaphari basecamp.jpg, not featured edit

File:The Churches of Mahone Bay, NS.jpg, not featured edit

File:Children playing at sunset on a Mekong bank in Si Phan Don.jpg, featured edit

File:An adult and a juvenile white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) fighting.jpg, featured edit

File:Barrio Pocitos Panorama Playa.jpg, not featured edit

File:Jefferson Memorial Washington April 2017 002.jpg, featured edit

File:Larus michahellis juvenile in flight, Sète04.jpg, featured edit

File:Farmhouse at Kelvin A. Lewis farm in Creeds 13.jpg, featured edit

File:Fireworks on New Year's Eve in a small Swabian village (1).jpg, featured edit

Alt edit

File:Flooded Albizia Saman (rain tree) in the Mekong.jpg, featured edit

File:Paddyfield pipit (Anthus rufulus rufulus).jpg, featured edit

File:Leyland Cypress NBG.jpg, not featured edit

File:20170624 Schneeberglandrallye DSC 7444.jpg, kept edit

File:Rose, Sheila's Perfume, バラ, シーラズパヒューム, (14525862372).jpg, not featured edit